Like I say: if we do get more RAM and better processor and graphics - if the display doesn't change - we will notice the performance improvements.
My number 1 request for iPad 2 = more RAM.
My number 2 request for iPad 2 = physically lighter.
K, you're really not interesting enough to size 5 your font.
Your number one request is pretty pointless considering you know full well that iPad 2 has 512 mb of RAM. It's not a request, it's just going to be there.
It's going to take much more than the A5 and the bare minimum RAM to make for a worthwhile upgrade.
I?m with everyone else on this: Not convinced, but really want this rumour to be true.
I think this is one of those things we will have to wait till the official announcement to know for sure, no matter what information comes out in the meantime.
I wish no one had mentioned it in the first place. Once it was talked about, I noticed how horribly jaggy the text was on the iPad and now I can't help but see it every single time I use the device.
Ignorance was truly bliss in the sense that the iPads low resolution screen wasn't even on anyone's mind until people started talking about the super double-pixel screen.
Higher res doesn't have to make everything smaller, think iPhone 4, the OS scaled the contents.
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
Yes 100% agree on last point ... I hate 'mobile' web sites you cannot avoid with a passion. Some simply refuse to let you get around it. There should always be an option (and a savable one) to select the real site if you wish. Now having said that an option to access a true iPad / iPhone style version (as opposed to something designed for a BB user) is nice at times as an option (like when on slow connections) but only as an option. I think I said option too many times here
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
The CCS styles issue .... I wonder if Apple could not also compensate for that in iOS rendering? I would not have thought that was impossible. Resolution independent rendering has to overcome all such issues surely?
While maybe a nice to have on many wish lists, it is not at the top. Seems like this is a good one to save for later.
I agree... if you consider the market to be what the iPad currently is addressing...
Quote:
Not critical upgrade.
I disagree... if you consider the potential: a) what markets an enhanced iPad could address; b) the capability for the iPad to set the standard and dominate the marketplace for the next several years
Quote:
Production of Pad1 was constrained by display supplies early on. Can they really get 40 million advanced displays like this? Why risk another shortage when they have just spun up production of the current displays?
The production line and supply chain for iPad2 is, likely, separate from iPad1.
The specs, supply-chain agreements, manufacturing setups for iPad2 have been in process for at least 6 months.
I do not believe the iPad1 supply constraint is related to the release of iPad2.
I do believe the contracts and forecasts [assumed to be large] for iPad2 are because Apple sees 2011 as the critical year for the iPad.
Even if the 2x iPad2 is supply-constrained -- it would be such a compelling product that buyers would wait for delivery -- rather than buy any of the announced alternatives that arent even in the same ballpark!
I was working for IBM when they introduced the Selectric typewriter -- that revolutionized the typewriter industry and was the beginning of desktop publishing!
The iPad2 has greater potential to revolutionize how people interact with content!
Neither can I. Neither i'm guessing can the typical average user. And that is who they design for, not the uber geeks that hang out on sites like this.
The average user will benefit from a front facing camera for FaceTime, dual GSM/CDMA connection options, more storage, more ram and/or faster processor for stability, longer battery life, anti glare glass etc. So these are things I expect fir the next couple of years. They are happen to be the same things needed to support a higher res screen of this type. Once they are in place and we have a realistic format for blu-ray quality digital video, then I will believe rumors that they are going with some super screen. Until then I still have it under the geek wet dream column
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the resolution of a high-quality magazine? I'd imagine that this would roughly be a resolution end-point.
Not really a good comparison. The reason is this: the standard for magazine publishing photos is 300dpi. Photographers are instructed to supply art at this size and no smaller than the size the photo will be eventually laid out at. In other words, if the photo takes up a full page, the supplied photo must be 8x10 at 300dpi. But usually photos are downsized by the art director to fit the layout.
Going way back the reason for the 300 standard is that this was approximately double the resolution of the final printed product.
But printing and displays are so very different: for one thing ink spreads -- which is actually a good thing when you are trying to avoid the reader seeing individual drops of ink.
People often forget that sometimes displays with smaller resolutions can actually look better. For instance, watch the same old TV program broadcast in standard definition on an older tube TV and an HDTV. The tube TV, with its lower resolution will look better than the HDTV where you will see lots of pixels. Of course, HD content looks better on an HDTV. The content has to match the medium.
I think this is one of those things we will have to wait till the official announcement to know for sure, no matter what information comes out in the meantime.
I wish no one had mentioned it in the first place. Once it was talked about, I noticed how horribly jaggy the text was on the iPad and now I can't help but see it every single time I use the device.
Ignorance was truly bliss in the sense that the iPads low resolution screen wasn't even on anyone's mind until people started talking about the super double-pixel screen.
I don't understand what you are talking about jaggy text!
Below is a zoomed screen shot from my iPad -- the only jaggies are in the raster images containing text (at the bottom).
Apologies in advance for the large image -- necessary to illustrate point.
I don't think they will segment the market with two different display types in the iPad 2. When they introduced the retina display on the iPhone, they extended this display all the way down to the cheapest iPod Touch model (at a lower quality, but still 960x640). They could have just used a higher quality low-res display, but they chose to use the new resolution for a simple reason - apps.
With the iPad 2, the incentive is the same - making all new iPad models at the higher resolution ensures that iPad developers will jump on the retina band-wagon. It's possible they might have last years model with the A5 (or maybe still the A4) at $399 or something, but I think odds are we'll see the iPad 2 with the hi-res display at ~$500.
As I commented on another board, the unveiling presentation practically writes itself:
4 times the CPU (dual core A9)
4 times the graphics (dual core SGX 543)
4 times the RAM (1GB)
4 times the screen (2048x1536)
Still just $499.
Without a higher-res display, I would have expected the iPad pricing to come down - now that they know the product will be in demand they can manufacture in much higher volume and get much better deals. Coupled with all the reports of "strategic" investments of several billion dollars (compared against flash, RAM, and CPU - leaving only battery, screen, or camera as possible components)... I think I've just convinced myself this is true.
This hasn't been debunked yet? While I would like to see a 2x screen on iPad, history shows mostly minor evolutionary upgrades on Apple products, with Apple doing 'shock and awe' only occasionally. I see the potential for a minor resolution increase to 1280x960, but not double - 'course I was wrong about the VZ iPhone4, so who knows? I think 2048x1536 is coming, but not for a few more years.
While I am starting to believe that the retina display won't arrive this year, I definitely don't see Apple waiting a few years. If they can deliver it in iPhone in 2010, then they should be able to deliver in the iPad at the latest by April 2012 (if not 2011). If they waited any longer I think they lose their competitive edge. At some point all manufacturers will be using this technology, or something better, so waiting makes zero sense. I think this all depends on only one thing. Does Apple want to take a financial hit hit now to be head and shoulders above the competition for the foreseeable future, or take a smaller hit later and only be on par with the competition? They can pick and choose their moment to do this, no question about it, but it will give them the most bang for their buck if they announce asap. We'll just have to see which way they go. If they wait til 2013 or later like you speculate, this would be a very bad decision.
2400 dpi for line work such as black text. 175 line screen for images. The CYMK each have a possible dot size of 1 to 256 scale (256 being solid 100% overlap). It isn't exactly the same relationship to a monitor. The reason people say 300 dpi is because that used to be twice the line screen. Now we use 350 because we print at 175 line screen. The reason you want to be twice is because of antialiasing. In a worst case scenario the placement of your image would be exactly half way between the dot grid. That way you have enough resolution to accurately average the color values. You can kind of think of 175 dpi as the viewing resolution on a printed page although it is not entirely accurate since it is a completely different imaging science.
I don't understand what you are talking about jaggy text!
Below is a zoomed screen shot from my iPad -- the only jaggies are in the raster images containing text (at the bottom).
The jaggies don't acale when you zoom, it actually looks worse when you zoom out. Pull up the same size text on an iPhone 4 and an iPad and look at them side by side. If you can not see the difference, visit an optomotrist.
Yes 100% agree on last point ... I hate 'mobile' web sites you cannot avoid with a passion. Some simply refuse to let you get around it. There should always be an option (and a savable one) to select the real site if you wish. Now having said that an option to access a true iPad / iPhone style version (as opposed to something designed for a BB user) is nice at times as an option (like when on slow connections) but only as an option. I think I said option too many times here
The worst sites are the ones that ignore the user agent string from the browser and use some other identifier to force you to get their mobile shit version. ESPN feeds you crap even if you jailbreak an iPhone or use an Androif phone feeding a user agent string of a desktop broswer like firefox or IE. It really pisses me off, because the mobile sites never have all of the content or usability of the main site. WTF? Most of us have a decent browser on Apple and Android phones, we dont need the mobile crap a windows mobile phone or old BB needed.
Comments
Like I say: if we do get more RAM and better processor and graphics - if the display doesn't change - we will notice the performance improvements.
My number 1 request for iPad 2 = more RAM.
My number 2 request for iPad 2 = physically lighter.
K, you're really not interesting enough to size 5 your font.
Your number one request is pretty pointless considering you know full well that iPad 2 has 512 mb of RAM. It's not a request, it's just going to be there.
It's going to take much more than the A5 and the bare minimum RAM to make for a worthwhile upgrade.
Either hi res display, or yawn for iPad 1 owners.
I?m with everyone else on this: Not convinced, but really want this rumour to be true.
I think this is one of those things we will have to wait till the official announcement to know for sure, no matter what information comes out in the meantime.
I wish no one had mentioned it in the first place. Once it was talked about, I noticed how horribly jaggy the text was on the iPad and now I can't help but see it every single time I use the device.
Ignorance was truly bliss in the sense that the iPads low resolution screen wasn't even on anyone's mind until people started talking about the super double-pixel screen.
Higher res doesn't have to make everything smaller, think iPhone 4, the OS scaled the contents.
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
Yes 100% agree on last point ... I hate 'mobile' web sites you cannot avoid with a passion. Some simply refuse to let you get around it. There should always be an option (and a savable one) to select the real site if you wish. Now having said that an option to access a true iPad / iPhone style version (as opposed to something designed for a BB user) is nice at times as an option (like when on slow connections) but only as an option. I think I said option too many times here
There are a lot of CSS styles on websites that do use pixels for font size as well as other size related design elements. In those cases you do have to pinch zoom. Am I the only one who dislikes the trend on the web to make iPhone formatted sites that you can't break out of? I appreciate that they went to the trouble but many times I would just prefer the actual website and scroll around.
The CCS styles issue .... I wonder if Apple could not also compensate for that in iOS rendering? I would not have thought that was impossible. Resolution independent rendering has to overcome all such issues surely?
I'm with Gruber on this one.
While maybe a nice to have on many wish lists, it is not at the top. Seems like this is a good one to save for later.
I agree... if you consider the market to be what the iPad currently is addressing...
Not critical upgrade.
I disagree... if you consider the potential: a) what markets an enhanced iPad could address; b) the capability for the iPad to set the standard and dominate the marketplace for the next several years
Production of Pad1 was constrained by display supplies early on. Can they really get 40 million advanced displays like this? Why risk another shortage when they have just spun up production of the current displays?
The production line and supply chain for iPad2 is, likely, separate from iPad1.
The specs, supply-chain agreements, manufacturing setups for iPad2 have been in process for at least 6 months.
I do not believe the iPad1 supply constraint is related to the release of iPad2.
I do believe the contracts and forecasts [assumed to be large] for iPad2 are because Apple sees 2011 as the critical year for the iPad.
Even if the 2x iPad2 is supply-constrained -- it would be such a compelling product that buyers would wait for delivery -- rather than buy any of the announced alternatives that arent even in the same ballpark!
I was working for IBM when they introduced the Selectric typewriter -- that revolutionized the typewriter industry and was the beginning of desktop publishing!
The iPad2 has greater potential to revolutionize how people interact with content!
iPad == You n' your stuff!
Sure just saying I already can't see the pixels.
Neither can I. Neither i'm guessing can the typical average user. And that is who they design for, not the uber geeks that hang out on sites like this.
The average user will benefit from a front facing camera for FaceTime, dual GSM/CDMA connection options, more storage, more ram and/or faster processor for stability, longer battery life, anti glare glass etc. So these are things I expect fir the next couple of years. They are happen to be the same things needed to support a higher res screen of this type. Once they are in place and we have a realistic format for blu-ray quality digital video, then I will believe rumors that they are going with some super screen. Until then I still have it under the geek wet dream column
Sure just saying I already can't see the pixels.
Pixels?... now where is that iPad... Oh here it is -- in my hand
I predict:
When a higher-res display comes out (perhaps not this year) and you hold the new and old displays side-by-side, you will be shocked at the difference.
Even with old eyes like mine.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the resolution of a high-quality magazine? I'd imagine that this would roughly be a resolution end-point.
Not really a good comparison. The reason is this: the standard for magazine publishing photos is 300dpi. Photographers are instructed to supply art at this size and no smaller than the size the photo will be eventually laid out at. In other words, if the photo takes up a full page, the supplied photo must be 8x10 at 300dpi. But usually photos are downsized by the art director to fit the layout.
Going way back the reason for the 300 standard is that this was approximately double the resolution of the final printed product.
But printing and displays are so very different: for one thing ink spreads -- which is actually a good thing when you are trying to avoid the reader seeing individual drops of ink.
People often forget that sometimes displays with smaller resolutions can actually look better. For instance, watch the same old TV program broadcast in standard definition on an older tube TV and an HDTV. The tube TV, with its lower resolution will look better than the HDTV where you will see lots of pixels. Of course, HD content looks better on an HDTV. The content has to match the medium.
I think this is one of those things we will have to wait till the official announcement to know for sure, no matter what information comes out in the meantime.
I wish no one had mentioned it in the first place. Once it was talked about, I noticed how horribly jaggy the text was on the iPad and now I can't help but see it every single time I use the device.
Ignorance was truly bliss in the sense that the iPads low resolution screen wasn't even on anyone's mind until people started talking about the super double-pixel screen.
I don't understand what you are talking about jaggy text!
Below is a zoomed screen shot from my iPad -- the only jaggies are in the raster images containing text (at the bottom).
Apologies in advance for the large image -- necessary to illustrate point.
With the iPad 2, the incentive is the same - making all new iPad models at the higher resolution ensures that iPad developers will jump on the retina band-wagon. It's possible they might have last years model with the A5 (or maybe still the A4) at $399 or something, but I think odds are we'll see the iPad 2 with the hi-res display at ~$500.
As I commented on another board, the unveiling presentation practically writes itself:
4 times the CPU (dual core A9)
4 times the graphics (dual core SGX 543)
4 times the RAM (1GB)
4 times the screen (2048x1536)
Still just $499.
Without a higher-res display, I would have expected the iPad pricing to come down - now that they know the product will be in demand they can manufacture in much higher volume and get much better deals. Coupled with all the reports of "strategic" investments of several billion dollars (compared against flash, RAM, and CPU - leaving only battery, screen, or camera as possible components)... I think I've just convinced myself this is true.
Convinced... or deluded.
Out of curiosity, does anyone know the resolution of a high-quality magazine? I'd imagine that this would roughly be a resolution end-point.
Usually 300 dpi or better.
This hasn't been debunked yet? While I would like to see a 2x screen on iPad, history shows mostly minor evolutionary upgrades on Apple products, with Apple doing 'shock and awe' only occasionally. I see the potential for a minor resolution increase to 1280x960, but not double - 'course I was wrong about the VZ iPhone4, so who knows? I think 2048x1536 is coming, but not for a few more years.
While I am starting to believe that the retina display won't arrive this year, I definitely don't see Apple waiting a few years. If they can deliver it in iPhone in 2010, then they should be able to deliver in the iPad at the latest by April 2012 (if not 2011). If they waited any longer I think they lose their competitive edge. At some point all manufacturers will be using this technology, or something better, so waiting makes zero sense. I think this all depends on only one thing. Does Apple want to take a financial hit hit now to be head and shoulders above the competition for the foreseeable future, or take a smaller hit later and only be on par with the competition? They can pick and choose their moment to do this, no question about it, but it will give them the most bang for their buck if they announce asap. We'll just have to see which way they go. If they wait til 2013 or later like you speculate, this would be a very bad decision.
Usually 300 dpi or better.
2400 dpi for line work such as black text. 175 line screen for images. The CYMK each have a possible dot size of 1 to 256 scale (256 being solid 100% overlap). It isn't exactly the same relationship to a monitor. The reason people say 300 dpi is because that used to be twice the line screen. Now we use 350 because we print at 175 line screen. The reason you want to be twice is because of antialiasing. In a worst case scenario the placement of your image would be exactly half way between the dot grid. That way you have enough resolution to accurately average the color values. You can kind of think of 175 dpi as the viewing resolution on a printed page although it is not entirely accurate since it is a completely different imaging science.
I don't understand what you are talking about jaggy text!
Below is a zoomed screen shot from my iPad -- the only jaggies are in the raster images containing text (at the bottom).
The jaggies don't acale when you zoom, it actually looks worse when you zoom out. Pull up the same size text on an iPhone 4 and an iPad and look at them side by side. If you can not see the difference, visit an optomotrist.
A number of commenters have said they don't see the value because they "can't see the pixels" on the current display.
I predict:
When a higher-res display comes out (perhaps not this year) and you hold the new and old displays side-by-side, you will be shocked at the difference.
Even with old eyes like mine.
This is true. It will be shocking, and such an iPad will be the most lusted-after photographic device since the Hasselblad, only much more attainable.
Yes 100% agree on last point ... I hate 'mobile' web sites you cannot avoid with a passion. Some simply refuse to let you get around it. There should always be an option (and a savable one) to select the real site if you wish. Now having said that an option to access a true iPad / iPhone style version (as opposed to something designed for a BB user) is nice at times as an option (like when on slow connections) but only as an option. I think I said option too many times here
The worst sites are the ones that ignore the user agent string from the browser and use some other identifier to force you to get their mobile shit version. ESPN feeds you crap even if you jailbreak an iPhone or use an Androif phone feeding a user agent string of a desktop broswer like firefox or IE. It really pisses me off, because the mobile sites never have all of the content or usability of the main site. WTF? Most of us have a decent browser on Apple and Android phones, we dont need the mobile crap a windows mobile phone or old BB needed.