The pixel density on the iPad is the same as on the Mac Book Pro. The Mac Book Pro uses a larger screen. So if your claims are true you should see the same problems even worse on the Mac Book Pro.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody
The trouble is with all the recent focus on the screen, it's really made people realise how totally crappy the current screen really is. The iPad screen is probably the worst (to the eye) screen Apple makes on any product at the moment.
I use Pages on it every day all day and the characters are so jaggy on the screen it's pretty much a joke. You don't even have to look close, the side of an "O" in 18 point type looks like a staircase, even from two feet away.
That's exactly where the iPhone 4 stands. It has a 960x640 screen with 326 ppi. There is no other screen like it on the market. While maintaining the same price point.
I don't know if Apple can do the same for the iPad. But they did do it for the iPhone 4.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Socrates
And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point.
First, memorizing large strings of data, in and of itself, apparently offers no particular selective advantage or we'd all have that skill. Although variation is necessary as the fodder of natural selection, variations don't define the species, and a particular variation, no matter how impressive we may find it, isn't necessarily beneficial. Also, I would note that "social pressure" is in fact an environmental factor that would act as a selection force just as solar radiation or scarcity of game would.
Secondly, natural selection works on what is already there -- i.e., the traits and variations present in individuals of a species. Abstract reasoning and predictive capacity are, obviously, advantageous traits for humans and other species. But, it's not like the ability to do calculus is encoded on some specific gene or is the result of some specific mutation. It's an ability that comes from a brain structure that is a) beneficial in related tasks and b) generalized in that it can learn new ones. So, yes, some people, due to variation, and focus on specific types of reasoning, have and develop extraordinary mathematical abilities. But these abilities are all built on a foundation of abstract reasoning that we inherited from our ancestors, not something we developed entirely de novo, and certainly not based on any "desire" of our species.
Additionally, the "predictive" tests that are often part of an IQ test are not really about predicting the future. They are actually much more about pattern recognition and, often, spacial analysis -- for example, the next logical progression is a rotation of a 3-dimensional object, or recognizing the pattern in a progression of numbers. This is obviously an important skill for any predator, as well as any tree dweller, not just humans. Clearly, the ability to "predict" the outcome of actions is also an important skill for any but the most instinct driven creature. But non of these things are solely useful to humans, nor, I expect are any of them abilities that are wholly unique to humans, except perhaps in degree.
Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
This was my thought exactly when I saw who was reporting. IF Apple was not preparing a Retina display for iPad 2, all this speculation would make people disappointed when it didn't happen.
But how would they put a stop to it? Since they are tight lipped they couldn't just make a press release, but they could pass information to a trusted source that most people would believe. In effect, they get the best of both worlds. They reset people's expectations so that if it doesn't happen, they are not disappointed. But they also stop people who might be buying competitor's products because there is still a possibility that it could happen.
My opinion, is that iPad 2 will have a GPU capable of doing Retina, but that the actual improved screen won't come until iPad 3.
Gruber knows his stuff. Disappointing if not somewhat expected even a week ago. The rumours just got too many and "well-sourced" to ignore what was thought unfeasible before. No SD card slot either, I (and Gruber) think. That one never made sense.
I'm still a believer in the SD card slot. I think Photoshop like applications are going to be huge on the iPad. Having a built in SD card slot makes it that much easier to transfer your pictures to the iPad. It makes perfect sense to me.
You know what this means? If iPad 2 has better proc and more RAM - it will actually 'feel' like it has. Which is a good thing, and way more important to me than retina-anything. The second most important thing iPad 2 needs is reduced weight.
That's exactly where the iPhone 4 stands. It has a 960x640 screen with 326 ppi. There is no other screen like it on the market. While maintaining the same price point.
I don't know if Apple can do the same for the iPad. But they did do it for the iPhone 4.
Sharp makes the IS03 smartphone for Japan?s KDDI that also has a 3.5? 960x640 display. It also uses a higher-grade panel (I.e: not a TN panel). It?s Sharps own SVA panel technology.
I?m not sure if SVA is better or worse than LG?s IPS. Wikipedia mentions something about sub-pixels so I?m not sure if the pixel count is true or using a false measure like in AMOLED displays. I also don?t know about the power usage, though one AI posters said the phone only get a couple hours of usage, though that could be for many reasons (E.g: smaller battery, poor power management, cheap backlight, etc.).
Ireland: Are we thinking maybe our post wouldn't stand out unless...?
I do agree. I'd rather have faster processor, more ram, and lighter weight for this go 'round than the higher res screen, although all four would be nice.
Solipsism... that's a lot of "I don't knows" in one post. It may have the same res "numbers", but if that includes sub-pixels, then it can't be compared with the iPhone's display, so there really still are no phones on the market with as high a res display unless "proven" otherwise.
And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point.
Really? The iPhone 4 has a HIGHER pixel density than is being rumored for the iPad 2. There is clearly not a technical limitation to getting that pixel density.
I don't have any idea what the cost would be or whether it's economically feasible, but let's stop with the "the technology doesn't exist" nonsense.
This was my thought exactly when I saw who was reporting. IF Apple was not preparing a Retina display for iPad 2, all this speculation would make people disappointed when it didn't happen.
But how would they put a stop to it? Since they are tight lipped they couldn't just make a press release, but they could pass information to a trusted source that most people would believe. In effect, they get the best of both worlds. They reset people's expectations so that if it doesn't happen, they are not disappointed. But they also stop people who might be buying competitor's products because there is still a possibility that it could happen.
My opinion, is that iPad 2 will have a GPU capable of doing Retina, but that the actual improved screen won't come until iPad 3.
This is better reasoning than that which occurred to me last night. I thought -- last straw of optimism -- that maybe Gruber was being deliberately misled away from the 'reality' of a retina display.
But he is much too valuable as a voice of sanity and realism to be used as a vehicle for disinformation. Apple would never officially carry out such an operation, hopefully. So I take back my dark implication of last night, posted in another thread, where, incidentally, you'll find other late-night first reactions from other posters on the last page of the comments.
While I respect John Gruber, I think he might be wrong on this one. There are just too many other things pointing towards the higher-res screen on the iPad2.
Here is what I see supporting the rumor.
First, Apple just announced yesterday that they have invested $3.9 billion in "secret long term component contracts". What component makes more sense to keep secret, than a 10" retina display?
Second, in 2009 Apple signed a five-year deal with LG to supply LCD panels to them. Not that big of a deal until you consider that the iSuppli analysis of the iPhone 4 stated that the LCD "most likely comes from LG or Toshiba." Then in that same year LG announced plans to build a $3 billion LCD manufacturing facility in China. To which some analysts "expressed concerns about a potential oversupply" and about which "LG Display declined to say how it will fund the investment in China". If this facility were part of that $3.9 billion dollar component contract to produce a 10" retina display for Apple (which there is a very good chance that LG was instrumental in making the 3.5" retina display), then that would provide the production potential necessary to supply these screens which nobody else is incorporating.
Third, just last month it was announced that Apple partnered with Sharp to build a $1.2 billion LCD facility in Japan. Which begs the question of why Apple would be investing all of this money in production capacity for an LCD screen that everybody and their brother uses in their tablets? If it were the same size and resolution as existing technology it seems that Apple would just place the orders and let the manufacturer worry about how to meet the demand. To me all of this investment really only makes sense if they are producing something that is different that what everyone else is making and using.
Fourth, according to Globaldirectparts.com the iPad 2 LCD will cost $218.19 as compared to $63.35 for the original iPad LCD. While I don't give a lot of credence to this rumor, it is interesting to note that this does support the contention that moving the iPad 2 to a retina display would cost substantially more to do. What many others are pointing to as a reason that Apple will not switch to a retina display now, to me doesn't rule it out. Apple will want to keep the $499 price point for an iPad, however as with the iPhone and the iPod Touch, they could very easily maintain the lowest price point by offering the iPad 1 at that price while offering the iPad 2 for the higher prices.
Which segues into the fifth point in favor of the retina display being in the iPad 2. Best Buy (a more reputable retail source for speculation in my opinion) has added three SKUs to their system for iPads that do not match up to the SKUs for iPad 1s. The really interesting thing about this is the price points for these new iPads. Two are set at $599 (I don't know what to make of two at $599 though) and one is set at $699. If Apple were to put a more expensive retina LCD into the iPad 2 and leave the iPad 1 at the $499 price point then Best Buy would not need a new SKU for the low end iPad, and this would allow Apple to sell the more expensive retina display equipped iPad 2s at higher prices. Which Best Buy seems to support.
Sixth, it has been rumored that the A5 (or A8 if you wish) processor will have a high end, dual-core SGX543MP2 GPU unit. This only seems to make sense if you are going to drastically boost the resolution of the iPad 2. The SGX543 GPU is reported to have twice the processing power of the A4's GPU, which would be a huge boost in graphical performance for a screen which stayed at the same resolution as the iPad 1. However, why would Apple go to a dual-core GPU, with all of its power requirements and subsequent lowering of battery life, if it didn't really need to. I maintain that they felt that they needed to go dual-core to boost the resolution of the iPad to retina display resolutions and still give the iPad 2 a boost in graphical performance. And since the support OpenCL they can provide a general processing boost to the iOS devices that don't necessarily need the raw graphical processing power of the retina display enabled iPad 2.
Finally, there are the graphics discovered in iBooks which are at retina display dimensions and using a retina display naming convention. However, this seems to be countered by the camera graphic which was at the iPad 1's resolution. Mr. Gruber makes the conjecture that the retina graphic in iBooks could be an over eager developer making a graphic for a possible iPad 3 equipped with a retina display, and this is very possible. However, we do know that the iPad 1 has the physical space and mountings for the inclusion of a camera. Which points very solidly to the fact that a camera was considered for the iPad 1 very late into the development cycle. Which means that it is also very likely that a good portion of the code for the camera was developed for the iPad 1's screen resolution. Which means that there is also a good chance that the development of the camera software has moved forward using the old graphic (which would work just fine on the iPad 2 with pixel doubling) to have the graphic redone for the retina display later on. After all, the upgrading of a graphic is a lower priority than many other parts of the code.
All-in-all nobody outside of Apple's select few likely really know whether the iPad 2 will have a retina display or if it will be delayed until the iPad 3. However, there is a lot more circumstantial evidence pointing towards the iPad 2 having a retina display than there is circumstantial evidence pointing away from it.
there's guessing and then there's logical guessing. Often folks go way out there without thinking about Apple would consider the issue. For the average person the pixel count is fine. The only advantage an increase would serve, for the average user, is for blu-ray level video. But the files would be huge, bigger possibly than the drive. So that would be a no go.
Better brightness control, some kind of light anti-glare etc are things that would help everyone and that is logically where they will focus their efforts. Not things for the super geeks that aren't massively buying iPads because they are as powerful as computers
While I respect John Gruber, I think he might be wrong on this one. There are just too many other things pointing towards the higher-res screen on the iPad2.
He covered that in his article, including the 10224x768 images for a camera shutter. That makes the images a wash, but in reality the iBooks app is a separate download while the Shutter image is part of iOS, not to mention that Apple could easily be experimenting and planning for this display now even though they can?t feasibly release it in a couple month. You have to consider all the possibilities.
Quote:
First, Apple just announced yesterday that they have invested $3.9 billion in "secret long term component contracts". What component makes more sense to keep secret, than a 10" retina display?
Out inability to know what other components or manufacturing Apple could be investment in does not mean that only the ones we can think of are valid, nor does it mean that this recent investment is coming to fruition immediately.
Quote:
Second, in 2009 Apple signed a five-year deal with LG to supply LCD panels to them. Not that big of a deal until you consider that the iSuppli analysis of the iPhone 4 stated that the LCD "most likely comes from LG or Toshiba." Then in that same year LG announced plans to build a $3 billion LCD manufacturing facility in China. To which some analysts "expressed concerns about a potential oversupply" and about which "LG Display declined to say how it will fund the investment in China". If this facility were part of that $3.9 billion dollar component contract to produce a 10" retina display for Apple (which there is a very good chance that LG was instrumental in making the 3.5" retina display), then that would provide the production potential necessary to supply these screens which nobody else is incorporating.
Third, just last month it was announced that Apple partnered with Sharp to build a $1.2 billion LCD facility in Japan. Which begs the question of why Apple would be investing all of this money in production capacity for an LCD screen that everybody and their brother uses in their tablets? If it were the same size and resolution as existing technology it seems that Apple would just place the orders and let the manufacturer worry about how to meet the demand. To me all of this investment really only makes sense if they are producing something that is different that what everyone else is making and using.
Why do you ignore that it could simply be for an E-IPS display technology or for a guaranteed supply of displays? They clearly can?t make enough units to meet all their needs and it?s been rumoured that the display manufacturing is what it holding them back the most.
Fourth, according to Globaldirectparts.com the iPad 2 LCD will cost $218.19 as compared to $63.35 for the original iPad LCD. While I don't give a lot of credence to this rumor, it is interesting to note that this does support the contention that moving the iPad 2 to a retina display would cost substantially more to do. What many others are pointing to as a reason that Apple will not switch to a retina display now, to me doesn't rule it out. Apple will want to keep the $499 price point for an iPad, however as with the iPhone and the iPod Touch, they could very easily maintain the lowest price point by offering the iPad 1 at that price while offering the iPad 2 for the higher prices.[/QUOTE]
That?s certainly a possibility, assuming that site, price and panel specs are legit. I?ve noticed the most expensive iPad at 64GB with WiFi+3G seems to be the 2nd most sold on Amazon?s top sellers, right behind the entry level 16GB with WiFi. That could give Apple and opportunity to make a more premium version. That also means they need a lot more processing HW for 4x the pixels and that very likely means a hit to the battery unless other tech is used, like E-IPS, a lower-power backlighting, and denser battery tech. All of these things also cost more money, not just the panel. And that?s before you account for all the bleeding-edge engineering.
Quote:
Which segues into the fifth point in favor of the retina display being in the iPad 2. Best Buy (a more reputable retail source for speculation in my opinion) has added three SKUs to their system for iPads that do not match up to the SKUs for iPad 1s. The really interesting thing about this is the price points for these new iPads. Two are set at $599 (I don't know what to make of two at $599 though) and one is set at $699. If Apple were to put a more expensive retina LCD into the iPad 2 and leave the iPad 1 at the $499 price point then Best Buy would not need a new SKU for the low end iPad, and this would allow Apple to sell the more expensive retina display equipped iPad 2s at higher prices. Which Best Buy seems to support.
SKUs are a bogus metric. We?ve seen them come and go before. I doubt Best Buy has insider information in their system months before the anniversary of the iPad is here. If anything, it points to a CDMA version.
Quote:
Sixth, it has been rumored that the A5 (or A8 if you wish) processor will have a high end, dual-core SGX543MP2 GPU unit. This only seems to make sense if you are going to drastically boost the resolution of the iPad 2. The SGX543 GPU is reported to have twice the processing power of the A4's GPU, which would be a huge boost in graphical performance for a screen which stayed at the same resolution as the iPad 1. However, why would Apple go to a dual-core GPU, with all of its power requirements and subsequent lowering of battery life, if it didn't really need to. I maintain that they felt that they needed to go dual-core to boost the resolution of the iPad to retina display resolutions and still give the iPad 2 a boost in graphical performance. And since the support OpenCL they can provide a general processing boost to the iOS devices that don't necessarily need the raw graphical processing power of the retina display enabled iPad 2.
It?s more than technically pushing the pixels to the screen, you also need to ensure the user experience is intact. Gruber goes into this with his some RAM usage figures but not with power usage.
Quote:
Finally, there are the graphics discovered in iBooks which are at retina display dimensions and using a retina display naming convention. However, this seems to be countered by the camera graphic which was at the iPad 1's resolution. Mr. Gruber makes the conjecture that the retina graphic in iBooks could be an over eager developer making a graphic for a possible iPad 3 equipped with a retina display, and this is very possible. However, we do know that the iPad 1 has the physical space and mountings for the inclusion of a camera. Which points very solidly to the fact that a camera was considered for the iPad 1 very late into the development cycle. Which means that it is also very likely that a good portion of the code for the camera was developed for the iPad 1's screen resolution. Which means that there is also a good chance that the development of the camera software has moved forward using the old graphic (which would work just fine on the iPad 2 with pixel doubling) to have the graphic redone for the retina display later on. After all, the upgrading of a graphic is a lower priority than many other parts of the code.
All-in-all nobody outside of Apple's select few likely really know whether the iPad 2 will have a retina display or if it will be delayed until the iPad 3. However, there is a lot more circumstantial evidence pointing towards the iPad 2 having a retina display than there is circumstantial evidence pointing away from it.
I guess we will all find out in a few months.
Okay, i see you are concluding with sound judgement and reasoning. I can see how desire can be turned to some level of truth, and people will surely be disappointed? as they always are. I hope it comes, but it?s not looking good. It never did.
For those arguing that a Retina display is likely, how do you reconcile the significant additional cost of Apple delivering it to the market (RAM, display without significantly increasing the price to the consumer? Do you believe Apple will increase the street price of the iPad considerably, or do you feel that it will assume a novel approach for the company and take a massive marging hit for the sake of growing its market?
Gruber himself argues that a 2048 × 1536 iPad display would be cost prohibitive given ths costs of both the display AND the RAM required for it (namely that even double the current iPad 256 MB of RAM would be insufficient to drive a 2048 × 1536 display). Who picks up these costs?
Moreover, who is manufacturing these panels in the numbers required to ensure there is no disruption in the supply chain to meet the anticipated demand? Apple will not expose themselves to such operational risk.
What if we look at this hi-res iPad display from a different perspective:
What if you are Apple and want to differentiate yourself from the competition by delivering a tablet with a higher-res display than any of them -- but you want to do so in such a way that it isn't disruptive to the developers (recoding) or a resource hog (programmatically scaling) -- yet isn't prohibitively expensive or difficult to manufacturer.
Is there anything you can do?
I think there is!
I have outlined my thoughts in a post to an earlier thread.
I want to illustrate, here, how current iPad apps might benefit from a slightly higher-rez display with no developer changes or rescaling. (All images are scaled 60% to conform to AI standards).
Fig 1: The Safari app displayed on the iPad
Fig 2: The Safari app displayed on the iPad showing the popup kb
Now, let's say the new iPad has a 1280x960 rez on the same screen. We can display the old 1024x768 res app unaltered, unscaled surrounded by black pixels. The actual display would be smaller, but still big enough. Note: The kb is a system-provided component and the system could automatically rescale the system kbs to the full width of the screen (maintaining the same height)
Fig 3: The Safari app displayed on the 1280x960 iPad showing kb
Here is one place we could gain from the higher-res display -- we could position the1024x768 content area at the top of the display and the bottom of the display could be used as a notifications / task bar (or somesuch).
Fig 4: The content area repositioned to the top of the display -- and a new task bar / notifications area on the bottom
We can take this a step further and have the system popup the kb from the bottom of the display -- revealing even more content
Fig 5: The content area repositioned to the top of the display -- and the kb popup from the bottom revealing more content -- here the system has scaled the kb to the full width of the screen
Compare figs 2 and 5 and you will see that we can see almost twice the content with the kb showing. Without rewriting, recompiling or rescaling of any kind.
Certainly, Apple would rewrite the system apps -- I used Safari because it is familiar.
I suspect that most current iPad apps would work quite well using this concept.
Likely, video and game apps would automatically rescale with a simple compile to support both the old and new rezes.
So, with a 1.25 x increase in display resolution, Apple could move the ball forward at minimal cost -- and little inconvenience to developers and users.
The original post where I discuss this in more detail is at:
Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
I have long felt that Gruber is the "official" unofficial source for Apple. I think it's likely Apple merely leaks the morsel of information knowing that Gruber will do a great job of fleshing out the arguments for and against.
Really? The iPhone 4 has a HIGHER pixel density than is being rumored for the iPad 2. There is clearly not a technical limitation to getting that pixel density.
I don't have any idea what the cost would be or whether it's economically feasible, but let's stop with the "the technology doesn't exist" nonsense.
Ironically what I said was that it didn't exist "in the market" - i.e. a comment about economic viability, which you chose to read as "the technology does not exist".
Of course it exists! I bet Steve jobs has one on his coffee table. But that doesn't mean it can be manufactured for under $200, or whatever the component cost of the current iPad display is.
Yes the iPhone4 has a retina display. Did you notice that the iPhone4 costs $100 more than the 3GS did when it first came out? More pixels means more money.
Here's another one for you: I have a 50" LCD TV that costs $2000 and I want to upgrade to a 120". That's roughly equivalent to the difference between a 3.5" iPhone retina screen and a 9" iPad retina screen in terms of relative pixel counts right? So how much will it cost me? I guess if I scale up the price by the number of pixels it should be about $10,000, yeah?
Well hmm, it doesn't look like anybody is selling 120" screens yet, but I can get a Samsung 100" LCD for $150,000.
I guess the economics of LCD manufacture aren't quite as simple as you thought. A 100" screen costs 75 times as much per pixel as a 50". The existence of a practical 3.5" 300dpi screen has little or no bearing on the practicality of a 9" 260dpi screen. As you increase the size of the panel, the chance of dead pixels goes up exponentially, reducing the yield and skyrocketing the price.
The chances are that if they can make 9" retina screens, they cost at least 10+ times as much as the current iPad display. I can't see it happening somehow, as much as I'd love to be wrong.
I have long felt that Gruber is the "official" unofficial source for Apple. I think it's likely Apple merely leaks the morsel of information knowing that Gruber will do a great job of fleshing out the arguments for and against.
We can only hope for the false leak. Like if Apple failed to keep the feature in secret, so they are intentionally leaking the opposite info to reset competitors from the alert mode.
I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
Or maybe they want the competition to think they will still be using the old LCD panels when in fact they are upgrading to new high res units.
Why wouldn't they upgrade? Was there enough differentiation between iPhone 4 and the competition without the retina display? Probably not, which is one reason they did that improvement. It is possible they will use the same leverage in the tablet space. Not that they usually play the spec card, but with other tablets launching soon Apple needs to really put some distance between themselves and the competition and screen technology is one thing that the competitors can't easily match.
The pattern is that they upgrade each device to match or exceed the current best specs of the other comparable iOS devices as they introduce new models.
I will be disappointed if the screen doesn't get a boost in iPad2. Personally I don't have a problem with the current screen since I have old, farsighted eyes anyway, but from a competitive perspective, I don't think they can wait another year to improve the screen resolution.
Comments
The trouble is with all the recent focus on the screen, it's really made people realise how totally crappy the current screen really is. The iPad screen is probably the worst (to the eye) screen Apple makes on any product at the moment.
I use Pages on it every day all day and the characters are so jaggy on the screen it's pretty much a joke. You don't even have to look close, the side of an "O" in 18 point type looks like a staircase, even from two feet away.
I don't know if Apple can do the same for the iPad. But they did do it for the iPhone 4.
And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point.
A couple of points related to your post.
First, memorizing large strings of data, in and of itself, apparently offers no particular selective advantage or we'd all have that skill. Although variation is necessary as the fodder of natural selection, variations don't define the species, and a particular variation, no matter how impressive we may find it, isn't necessarily beneficial. Also, I would note that "social pressure" is in fact an environmental factor that would act as a selection force just as solar radiation or scarcity of game would.
Secondly, natural selection works on what is already there -- i.e., the traits and variations present in individuals of a species. Abstract reasoning and predictive capacity are, obviously, advantageous traits for humans and other species. But, it's not like the ability to do calculus is encoded on some specific gene or is the result of some specific mutation. It's an ability that comes from a brain structure that is a) beneficial in related tasks and b) generalized in that it can learn new ones. So, yes, some people, due to variation, and focus on specific types of reasoning, have and develop extraordinary mathematical abilities. But these abilities are all built on a foundation of abstract reasoning that we inherited from our ancestors, not something we developed entirely de novo, and certainly not based on any "desire" of our species.
Additionally, the "predictive" tests that are often part of an IQ test are not really about predicting the future. They are actually much more about pattern recognition and, often, spacial analysis -- for example, the next logical progression is a rotation of a 3-dimensional object, or recognizing the pattern in a progression of numbers. This is obviously an important skill for any predator, as well as any tree dweller, not just humans. Clearly, the ability to "predict" the outcome of actions is also an important skill for any but the most instinct driven creature. But non of these things are solely useful to humans, nor, I expect are any of them abilities that are wholly unique to humans, except perhaps in degree.
Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
This was my thought exactly when I saw who was reporting. IF Apple was not preparing a Retina display for iPad 2, all this speculation would make people disappointed when it didn't happen.
But how would they put a stop to it? Since they are tight lipped they couldn't just make a press release, but they could pass information to a trusted source that most people would believe. In effect, they get the best of both worlds. They reset people's expectations so that if it doesn't happen, they are not disappointed. But they also stop people who might be buying competitor's products because there is still a possibility that it could happen.
My opinion, is that iPad 2 will have a GPU capable of doing Retina, but that the actual improved screen won't come until iPad 3.
Gruber knows his stuff. Disappointing if not somewhat expected even a week ago. The rumours just got too many and "well-sourced" to ignore what was thought unfeasible before. No SD card slot either, I (and Gruber) think. That one never made sense.
I'm still a believer in the SD card slot. I think Photoshop like applications are going to be huge on the iPad. Having a built in SD card slot makes it that much easier to transfer your pictures to the iPad. It makes perfect sense to me.
You know what this means? If iPad 2 has better proc and more RAM - it will actually 'feel' like it has. Which is a good thing, and way more important to me than retina-anything. The second most important thing iPad 2 needs is reduced weight.
That's exactly where the iPhone 4 stands. It has a 960x640 screen with 326 ppi. There is no other screen like it on the market. While maintaining the same price point.
I don't know if Apple can do the same for the iPad. But they did do it for the iPhone 4.
Sharp makes the IS03 smartphone for Japan?s KDDI that also has a 3.5? 960x640 display. It also uses a higher-grade panel (I.e: not a TN panel). It?s Sharps own SVA panel technology.
I?m not sure if SVA is better or worse than LG?s IPS. Wikipedia mentions something about sub-pixels so I?m not sure if the pixel count is true or using a false measure like in AMOLED displays. I also don?t know about the power usage, though one AI posters said the phone only get a couple hours of usage, though that could be for many reasons (E.g: smaller battery, poor power management, cheap backlight, etc.).
I do agree. I'd rather have faster processor, more ram, and lighter weight for this go 'round than the higher res screen, although all four would be nice.
Solipsism... that's a lot of "I don't knows" in one post. It may have the same res "numbers", but if that includes sub-pixels, then it can't be compared with the iPhone's display, so there really still are no phones on the market with as high a res display unless "proven" otherwise.
And because a screen with that many pixels in such a small space is beyond anything currently on the market, it's very unlikely that Apple have managed to do it for iPad 2 whilst retaining the same price point.
Really? The iPhone 4 has a HIGHER pixel density than is being rumored for the iPad 2. There is clearly not a technical limitation to getting that pixel density.
I don't have any idea what the cost would be or whether it's economically feasible, but let's stop with the "the technology doesn't exist" nonsense.
This was my thought exactly when I saw who was reporting. IF Apple was not preparing a Retina display for iPad 2, all this speculation would make people disappointed when it didn't happen.
But how would they put a stop to it? Since they are tight lipped they couldn't just make a press release, but they could pass information to a trusted source that most people would believe. In effect, they get the best of both worlds. They reset people's expectations so that if it doesn't happen, they are not disappointed. But they also stop people who might be buying competitor's products because there is still a possibility that it could happen.
My opinion, is that iPad 2 will have a GPU capable of doing Retina, but that the actual improved screen won't come until iPad 3.
This is better reasoning than that which occurred to me last night. I thought -- last straw of optimism -- that maybe Gruber was being deliberately misled away from the 'reality' of a retina display.
But he is much too valuable as a voice of sanity and realism to be used as a vehicle for disinformation. Apple would never officially carry out such an operation, hopefully. So I take back my dark implication of last night, posted in another thread, where, incidentally, you'll find other late-night first reactions from other posters on the last page of the comments.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...=116954&page=5
Here is what I see supporting the rumor.
First, Apple just announced yesterday that they have invested $3.9 billion in "secret long term component contracts". What component makes more sense to keep secret, than a 10" retina display?
Second, in 2009 Apple signed a five-year deal with LG to supply LCD panels to them. Not that big of a deal until you consider that the iSuppli analysis of the iPhone 4 stated that the LCD "most likely comes from LG or Toshiba." Then in that same year LG announced plans to build a $3 billion LCD manufacturing facility in China. To which some analysts "expressed concerns about a potential oversupply" and about which "LG Display declined to say how it will fund the investment in China". If this facility were part of that $3.9 billion dollar component contract to produce a 10" retina display for Apple (which there is a very good chance that LG was instrumental in making the 3.5" retina display), then that would provide the production potential necessary to supply these screens which nobody else is incorporating.
Third, just last month it was announced that Apple partnered with Sharp to build a $1.2 billion LCD facility in Japan. Which begs the question of why Apple would be investing all of this money in production capacity for an LCD screen that everybody and their brother uses in their tablets? If it were the same size and resolution as existing technology it seems that Apple would just place the orders and let the manufacturer worry about how to meet the demand. To me all of this investment really only makes sense if they are producing something that is different that what everyone else is making and using.
Fourth, according to Globaldirectparts.com the iPad 2 LCD will cost $218.19 as compared to $63.35 for the original iPad LCD. While I don't give a lot of credence to this rumor, it is interesting to note that this does support the contention that moving the iPad 2 to a retina display would cost substantially more to do. What many others are pointing to as a reason that Apple will not switch to a retina display now, to me doesn't rule it out. Apple will want to keep the $499 price point for an iPad, however as with the iPhone and the iPod Touch, they could very easily maintain the lowest price point by offering the iPad 1 at that price while offering the iPad 2 for the higher prices.
Which segues into the fifth point in favor of the retina display being in the iPad 2. Best Buy (a more reputable retail source for speculation in my opinion) has added three SKUs to their system for iPads that do not match up to the SKUs for iPad 1s. The really interesting thing about this is the price points for these new iPads. Two are set at $599 (I don't know what to make of two at $599 though) and one is set at $699. If Apple were to put a more expensive retina LCD into the iPad 2 and leave the iPad 1 at the $499 price point then Best Buy would not need a new SKU for the low end iPad, and this would allow Apple to sell the more expensive retina display equipped iPad 2s at higher prices. Which Best Buy seems to support.
Sixth, it has been rumored that the A5 (or A8 if you wish) processor will have a high end, dual-core SGX543MP2 GPU unit. This only seems to make sense if you are going to drastically boost the resolution of the iPad 2. The SGX543 GPU is reported to have twice the processing power of the A4's GPU, which would be a huge boost in graphical performance for a screen which stayed at the same resolution as the iPad 1. However, why would Apple go to a dual-core GPU, with all of its power requirements and subsequent lowering of battery life, if it didn't really need to. I maintain that they felt that they needed to go dual-core to boost the resolution of the iPad to retina display resolutions and still give the iPad 2 a boost in graphical performance. And since the support OpenCL they can provide a general processing boost to the iOS devices that don't necessarily need the raw graphical processing power of the retina display enabled iPad 2.
Finally, there are the graphics discovered in iBooks which are at retina display dimensions and using a retina display naming convention. However, this seems to be countered by the camera graphic which was at the iPad 1's resolution. Mr. Gruber makes the conjecture that the retina graphic in iBooks could be an over eager developer making a graphic for a possible iPad 3 equipped with a retina display, and this is very possible. However, we do know that the iPad 1 has the physical space and mountings for the inclusion of a camera. Which points very solidly to the fact that a camera was considered for the iPad 1 very late into the development cycle. Which means that it is also very likely that a good portion of the code for the camera was developed for the iPad 1's screen resolution. Which means that there is also a good chance that the development of the camera software has moved forward using the old graphic (which would work just fine on the iPad 2 with pixel doubling) to have the graphic redone for the retina display later on. After all, the upgrading of a graphic is a lower priority than many other parts of the code.
All-in-all nobody outside of Apple's select few likely really know whether the iPad 2 will have a retina display or if it will be delayed until the iPad 3. However, there is a lot more circumstantial evidence pointing towards the iPad 2 having a retina display than there is circumstantial evidence pointing away from it.
I guess we will all find out in a few months.
We spend too much time guessing, don't you think?
there's guessing and then there's logical guessing. Often folks go way out there without thinking about Apple would consider the issue. For the average person the pixel count is fine. The only advantage an increase would serve, for the average user, is for blu-ray level video. But the files would be huge, bigger possibly than the drive. So that would be a no go.
Better brightness control, some kind of light anti-glare etc are things that would help everyone and that is logically where they will focus their efforts. Not things for the super geeks that aren't massively buying iPads because they are as powerful as computers
While I respect John Gruber, I think he might be wrong on this one. There are just too many other things pointing towards the higher-res screen on the iPad2.
He covered that in his article, including the 10224x768 images for a camera shutter. That makes the images a wash, but in reality the iBooks app is a separate download while the Shutter image is part of iOS, not to mention that Apple could easily be experimenting and planning for this display now even though they can?t feasibly release it in a couple month. You have to consider all the possibilities.
First, Apple just announced yesterday that they have invested $3.9 billion in "secret long term component contracts". What component makes more sense to keep secret, than a 10" retina display?
Out inability to know what other components or manufacturing Apple could be investment in does not mean that only the ones we can think of are valid, nor does it mean that this recent investment is coming to fruition immediately.
Second, in 2009 Apple signed a five-year deal with LG to supply LCD panels to them. Not that big of a deal until you consider that the iSuppli analysis of the iPhone 4 stated that the LCD "most likely comes from LG or Toshiba." Then in that same year LG announced plans to build a $3 billion LCD manufacturing facility in China. To which some analysts "expressed concerns about a potential oversupply" and about which "LG Display declined to say how it will fund the investment in China". If this facility were part of that $3.9 billion dollar component contract to produce a 10" retina display for Apple (which there is a very good chance that LG was instrumental in making the 3.5" retina display), then that would provide the production potential necessary to supply these screens which nobody else is incorporating.
Third, just last month it was announced that Apple partnered with Sharp to build a $1.2 billion LCD facility in Japan. Which begs the question of why Apple would be investing all of this money in production capacity for an LCD screen that everybody and their brother uses in their tablets? If it were the same size and resolution as existing technology it seems that Apple would just place the orders and let the manufacturer worry about how to meet the demand. To me all of this investment really only makes sense if they are producing something that is different that what everyone else is making and using.
Why do you ignore that it could simply be for an E-IPS display technology or for a guaranteed supply of displays? They clearly can?t make enough units to meet all their needs and it?s been rumoured that the display manufacturing is what it holding them back the most.
Fourth, according to Globaldirectparts.com the iPad 2 LCD will cost $218.19 as compared to $63.35 for the original iPad LCD. While I don't give a lot of credence to this rumor, it is interesting to note that this does support the contention that moving the iPad 2 to a retina display would cost substantially more to do. What many others are pointing to as a reason that Apple will not switch to a retina display now, to me doesn't rule it out. Apple will want to keep the $499 price point for an iPad, however as with the iPhone and the iPod Touch, they could very easily maintain the lowest price point by offering the iPad 1 at that price while offering the iPad 2 for the higher prices.[/QUOTE]
That?s certainly a possibility, assuming that site, price and panel specs are legit. I?ve noticed the most expensive iPad at 64GB with WiFi+3G seems to be the 2nd most sold on Amazon?s top sellers, right behind the entry level 16GB with WiFi. That could give Apple and opportunity to make a more premium version. That also means they need a lot more processing HW for 4x the pixels and that very likely means a hit to the battery unless other tech is used, like E-IPS, a lower-power backlighting, and denser battery tech. All of these things also cost more money, not just the panel. And that?s before you account for all the bleeding-edge engineering.
Which segues into the fifth point in favor of the retina display being in the iPad 2. Best Buy (a more reputable retail source for speculation in my opinion) has added three SKUs to their system for iPads that do not match up to the SKUs for iPad 1s. The really interesting thing about this is the price points for these new iPads. Two are set at $599 (I don't know what to make of two at $599 though) and one is set at $699. If Apple were to put a more expensive retina LCD into the iPad 2 and leave the iPad 1 at the $499 price point then Best Buy would not need a new SKU for the low end iPad, and this would allow Apple to sell the more expensive retina display equipped iPad 2s at higher prices. Which Best Buy seems to support.
SKUs are a bogus metric. We?ve seen them come and go before. I doubt Best Buy has insider information in their system months before the anniversary of the iPad is here. If anything, it points to a CDMA version.
Sixth, it has been rumored that the A5 (or A8 if you wish) processor will have a high end, dual-core SGX543MP2 GPU unit. This only seems to make sense if you are going to drastically boost the resolution of the iPad 2. The SGX543 GPU is reported to have twice the processing power of the A4's GPU, which would be a huge boost in graphical performance for a screen which stayed at the same resolution as the iPad 1. However, why would Apple go to a dual-core GPU, with all of its power requirements and subsequent lowering of battery life, if it didn't really need to. I maintain that they felt that they needed to go dual-core to boost the resolution of the iPad to retina display resolutions and still give the iPad 2 a boost in graphical performance. And since the support OpenCL they can provide a general processing boost to the iOS devices that don't necessarily need the raw graphical processing power of the retina display enabled iPad 2.
It?s more than technically pushing the pixels to the screen, you also need to ensure the user experience is intact. Gruber goes into this with his some RAM usage figures but not with power usage.
Finally, there are the graphics discovered in iBooks which are at retina display dimensions and using a retina display naming convention. However, this seems to be countered by the camera graphic which was at the iPad 1's resolution. Mr. Gruber makes the conjecture that the retina graphic in iBooks could be an over eager developer making a graphic for a possible iPad 3 equipped with a retina display, and this is very possible. However, we do know that the iPad 1 has the physical space and mountings for the inclusion of a camera. Which points very solidly to the fact that a camera was considered for the iPad 1 very late into the development cycle. Which means that it is also very likely that a good portion of the code for the camera was developed for the iPad 1's screen resolution. Which means that there is also a good chance that the development of the camera software has moved forward using the old graphic (which would work just fine on the iPad 2 with pixel doubling) to have the graphic redone for the retina display later on. After all, the upgrading of a graphic is a lower priority than many other parts of the code.
All-in-all nobody outside of Apple's select few likely really know whether the iPad 2 will have a retina display or if it will be delayed until the iPad 3. However, there is a lot more circumstantial evidence pointing towards the iPad 2 having a retina display than there is circumstantial evidence pointing away from it.
I guess we will all find out in a few months.
Okay, i see you are concluding with sound judgement and reasoning. I can see how desire can be turned to some level of truth, and people will surely be disappointed? as they always are. I hope it comes, but it?s not looking good. It never did.
Gruber himself argues that a 2048 × 1536 iPad display would be cost prohibitive given ths costs of both the display AND the RAM required for it (namely that even double the current iPad 256 MB of RAM would be insufficient to drive a 2048 × 1536 display). Who picks up these costs?
Moreover, who is manufacturing these panels in the numbers required to ensure there is no disruption in the supply chain to meet the anticipated demand? Apple will not expose themselves to such operational risk.
It's just not feasible. Lower your expecations.
What if we look at this hi-res iPad display from a different perspective:
What if you are Apple and want to differentiate yourself from the competition by delivering a tablet with a higher-res display than any of them -- but you want to do so in such a way that it isn't disruptive to the developers (recoding) or a resource hog (programmatically scaling) -- yet isn't prohibitively expensive or difficult to manufacturer.
Is there anything you can do?
I think there is!
I have outlined my thoughts in a post to an earlier thread.
I want to illustrate, here, how current iPad apps might benefit from a slightly higher-rez display with no developer changes or rescaling. (All images are scaled 60% to conform to AI standards).
Fig 1: The Safari app displayed on the iPad
Fig 2: The Safari app displayed on the iPad showing the popup kb
Now, let's say the new iPad has a 1280x960 rez on the same screen. We can display the old 1024x768 res app unaltered, unscaled surrounded by black pixels. The actual display would be smaller, but still big enough. Note: The kb is a system-provided component and the system could automatically rescale the system kbs to the full width of the screen (maintaining the same height)
Fig 3: The Safari app displayed on the 1280x960 iPad showing kb
Here is one place we could gain from the higher-res display -- we could position the1024x768 content area at the top of the display and the bottom of the display could be used as a notifications / task bar (or somesuch).
Fig 4: The content area repositioned to the top of the display -- and a new task bar / notifications area on the bottom
We can take this a step further and have the system popup the kb from the bottom of the display -- revealing even more content
Fig 5: The content area repositioned to the top of the display -- and the kb popup from the bottom revealing more content -- here the system has scaled the kb to the full width of the screen
Compare figs 2 and 5 and you will see that we can see almost twice the content with the kb showing. Without rewriting, recompiling or rescaling of any kind.
Certainly, Apple would rewrite the system apps -- I used Safari because it is familiar.
I suspect that most current iPad apps would work quite well using this concept.
Likely, video and game apps would automatically rescale with a simple compile to support both the old and new rezes.
So, with a 1.25 x increase in display resolution, Apple could move the ball forward at minimal cost -- and little inconvenience to developers and users.
The original post where I discuss this in more detail is at:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showt...11#post1789311
Oh, and BTW, Gruber's history with these sort of "predictions" is pretty good, indicating that his sources are very good. I think it's also likely that his sources, when they do "leak" this sort of information to him do it with authorization. He does not have a history, as many other blogs do, of going out on a limb with hardware predictions that turn out to be bogus -- he's almost always correct when he discusses something hardware related with this much specificity. I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
I have long felt that Gruber is the "official" unofficial source for Apple. I think it's likely Apple merely leaks the morsel of information knowing that Gruber will do a great job of fleshing out the arguments for and against.
Really? The iPhone 4 has a HIGHER pixel density than is being rumored for the iPad 2. There is clearly not a technical limitation to getting that pixel density.
I don't have any idea what the cost would be or whether it's economically feasible, but let's stop with the "the technology doesn't exist" nonsense.
Ironically what I said was that it didn't exist "in the market" - i.e. a comment about economic viability, which you chose to read as "the technology does not exist".
Of course it exists! I bet Steve jobs has one on his coffee table. But that doesn't mean it can be manufactured for under $200, or whatever the component cost of the current iPad display is.
Yes the iPhone4 has a retina display. Did you notice that the iPhone4 costs $100 more than the 3GS did when it first came out? More pixels means more money.
Here's another one for you: I have a 50" LCD TV that costs $2000 and I want to upgrade to a 120". That's roughly equivalent to the difference between a 3.5" iPhone retina screen and a 9" iPad retina screen in terms of relative pixel counts right? So how much will it cost me? I guess if I scale up the price by the number of pixels it should be about $10,000, yeah?
Well hmm, it doesn't look like anybody is selling 120" screens yet, but I can get a Samsung 100" LCD for $150,000.
I guess the economics of LCD manufacture aren't quite as simple as you thought. A 100" screen costs 75 times as much per pixel as a 50". The existence of a practical 3.5" 300dpi screen has little or no bearing on the practicality of a 9" 260dpi screen. As you increase the size of the panel, the chance of dead pixels goes up exponentially, reducing the yield and skyrocketing the price.
The chances are that if they can make 9" retina screens, they cost at least 10+ times as much as the current iPad display. I can't see it happening somehow, as much as I'd love to be wrong.
Ah well, sometimes the real world doth intrude.
I have long felt that Gruber is the "official" unofficial source for Apple. I think it's likely Apple merely leaks the morsel of information knowing that Gruber will do a great job of fleshing out the arguments for and against.
We can only hope for the false leak. Like if Apple failed to keep the feature in secret, so they are intentionally leaking the opposite info to reset competitors from the alert mode.
Yes the iPhone4 has a retina display. Did you notice that the iPhone4 costs $100 more than the 3GS did when it first came out.
I'm guessing the iPad Retina Screen rumors were getting out of hand and Apple wanted to put an end to them -- managing expectations.
Or maybe they want the competition to think they will still be using the old LCD panels when in fact they are upgrading to new high res units.
Why wouldn't they upgrade? Was there enough differentiation between iPhone 4 and the competition without the retina display? Probably not, which is one reason they did that improvement. It is possible they will use the same leverage in the tablet space. Not that they usually play the spec card, but with other tablets launching soon Apple needs to really put some distance between themselves and the competition and screen technology is one thing that the competitors can't easily match.
The pattern is that they upgrade each device to match or exceed the current best specs of the other comparable iOS devices as they introduce new models.
I will be disappointed if the screen doesn't get a boost in iPad2. Personally I don't have a problem with the current screen since I have old, farsighted eyes anyway, but from a competitive perspective, I don't think they can wait another year to improve the screen resolution.