A small HDMI to airplay adapter is actually a pretty good idea. It would elevate airplay from nearly useless to a reasonable solution. I would still want an HDMI port so I don't have to carry any adapters or cables, but the ability to present wirelessly might make carrying an adapter a viable choice.
AirPlay to VGA, too, for the average projector. I have no idea how to create this but I did pass the idea onto a couple people who might be able to do something with it, assuming Apple allows it.
I simple adapter would be great, but I?d still be okay with the $99 Apple products I mentioned being able to do it without needing both in tandem.
Perhaps you need glasses. When you put the iPad next to the iPhone 4 it looks horrible.
Agreed - I thought the iPad was the 'bee's knees' until I got the iPhone 4. Nice for graphics/games, but for 1/2 of the intended use (web & reading) it's not up to what it needs to be, particularly for text on websites - I'm not interested in zooming in, if I wanted that I'd use my phone. 1024x768 sucked for monitors too.
Comparing the iPhone 4 vs. the iPad, you have a similar resolution (80% - 614,000 vs 786,000 pixels) in 1/7th the area (6 sq. inches vs 45 square inches), and that makes a HUGE difference in sharpness. If the iPad was 4x the res, it would have 5 times the pixels in 7.5 times the area, so almost as high res, and at that point holding it a bit further away when using it, you'd have equally sharp text on a much nicer to use (for surfing / reading) form factor.
I'll happily give up a mini displayport connector for that type of screen. It may not be feasible this year, though I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I can't understand arguing that 1024x768 is good enough after you've seen the retina display on the iPhone 4.
I would gladly pay an extra $15 or whatever the parts cost in order to have cameras that I might actually enjoy using for something, instead of the cheapest bottom-end items that they'd use just to be able to add "camera" to the features list.
...If the iPad was 4x the res, it would have 5 times the pixels in 7.5 times the area, so almost as high res, and at that point holding it a bit further away when using it, you'd have equally sharp text on a much nicer to use (for surfing / reading) form factor.
I'll happily give up a mini displayport connector for that type of screen....
I think the real issue though is battery life and performance. There is no such thing as a free lunch! Rendering that many more pixels comes at a pretty big cost in performance and therefore battery life - I can't make a good guess at it for this device since I am not familiar with power drain for the disparate screens but I can tell you with great confidence it would be significant. Granted newer GPUs (read multicore) has the potential to add a bunch to existing performance but at what cost?
I would gladly pay an extra $15 or whatever the parts cost in order to have cameras that I might actually enjoy using for something, instead of the cheapest bottom-end items that they'd use just to be able to add "camera" to the features list.
There is always a trade off. Are you willing to add more thickness (fairly significant amount) to the iPad? I am but I think most would balk-
Apple will definitely include 'HD' cameras in the iPad2, as it is so easy to include a camera that is classed as 'HD'. As for specs, and if they even need to include a rear camera is the talking point.
I still think there is a chance of them not including a rear camera, just because I personally can't see the use. Apple only uses/markets the rear camera for iPhone and iPod Touch for taking still shots and videos, and I can't see Apple pushing this as a reason to use a rear camera on the iPad2 (you may use it for this, but looks silly on if advertised this way). And we all know Apple only puts hardware in their products that they believe is useful, regardless of what the rest of the industry is doing.
I am a teacher. This would allow me to show powerpoint presentations from the ipad, rather than having to drag my laptop around.
You can already do that without DisplayPort. It's called Keynote and the Dock Connector to VGA adapter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northern1
Apple will definitely include 'HD' cameras in the iPad2, as it is so easy to include a camera that is classed as 'HD'.
Why? All evidence points to 0.3 and 1.0 megapixels for the front and rear cameras, respectively. There's no evidence or reason for classifying anything as HD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rmusikantow
I always have my iphone with me. Why do I need another camera. Waste of space and money.
"I have no use for this feature, so obviously it's completely pointless and no one needs it."
The iPad is being rapidly adopted by enterprise customers. Many of them would like the ability to use the iPad for presentations to a large audience.
If that's the case, then it should have been HDMI not displayport as HDMI is used by both enterprise and home use more so than display port. Yet another example of a Apple's closed sytem trying to make you buy their own connector. While some monitors may have display port; they all have HDMI.
There is no technical reason to limit iPad2 to any kind of camera. I think it all comes down to other factors like the positioning of iPad wrt iPhone and iPodTouch and cost.
I think the real issue though is battery life and performance. There is no such thing as a free lunch! Rendering that many more pixels comes at a pretty big cost in performance and therefore battery life - I can't make a good guess at it for this device since I am not familiar with power drain for the disparate screens but I can tell you with great confidence it would be significant. Granted newer GPUs (read multicore) has the potential to add a bunch to existing performance but at what cost?
How much battery life are you willing to give up?
I read this statement a lot, but I haven't seen any real evidence either way. I'm curious whether anyone has benchmarked a laptop running at various resolutions to see if the battery runtime was impacted when using different resolutions. My instincts tell me it's marginal, but I'd love to see hard data to prove either case.
If that's the case, then it should have been HDMI not displayport as HDMI is used by both enterprise and home use more so than display port. Yet another example of a Apple's closed sytem trying to make you buy their own connector. While some monitors may have display port; they all have HDMI.
You continue to be astoundingly hilarious. DisplayPort is not only an open standard, it's free to adopt. You can't fit six HDMI ports on a graphics card, but ATI puts that many Mini DisplayPort on its high-end graphics walls.
Businesses dont have displays compatible with the display port, just like more than 90% of consumers. If they are going to put a video out port, it should be HDMI, and it should have 7.1 audio support as well.
1) There is a simple VGA kit that's been available to connect iPad to projectors for months now.
2) 7.1 audio!!??? I doubt that they do 7.1 audio in presentations at Pixar or Lucas, let alone at any other real company. Silliest feature I ever seen suggested.
You continue to be astoundingly hilarious. DisplayPort is not only an open standard, it's free to adopt. You can't fit six HDMI ports on a graphics card, but ATI puts that many Mini DisplayPort on its high-end graphics walls.
So now we're talking about 6 ports yet I'm hilarious?
Comments
What is people's obsession with the resolution in iPad - the resolution is fantastic, the screen is great.
I thought that too until I saw the iPhone4.
A small HDMI to airplay adapter is actually a pretty good idea. It would elevate airplay from nearly useless to a reasonable solution. I would still want an HDMI port so I don't have to carry any adapters or cables, but the ability to present wirelessly might make carrying an adapter a viable choice.
AirPlay to VGA, too, for the average projector. I have no idea how to create this but I did pass the idea onto a couple people who might be able to do something with it, assuming Apple allows it.
I simple adapter would be great, but I?d still be okay with the $99 Apple products I mentioned being able to do it without needing both in tandem.
Perhaps you need glasses. When you put the iPad next to the iPhone 4 it looks horrible.
Agreed - I thought the iPad was the 'bee's knees' until I got the iPhone 4. Nice for graphics/games, but for 1/2 of the intended use (web & reading) it's not up to what it needs to be, particularly for text on websites - I'm not interested in zooming in, if I wanted that I'd use my phone. 1024x768 sucked for monitors too.
Comparing the iPhone 4 vs. the iPad, you have a similar resolution (80% - 614,000 vs 786,000 pixels) in 1/7th the area (6 sq. inches vs 45 square inches), and that makes a HUGE difference in sharpness. If the iPad was 4x the res, it would have 5 times the pixels in 7.5 times the area, so almost as high res, and at that point holding it a bit further away when using it, you'd have equally sharp text on a much nicer to use (for surfing / reading) form factor.
I'll happily give up a mini displayport connector for that type of screen. It may not be feasible this year, though I'll keep my fingers crossed, but I can't understand arguing that 1024x768 is good enough after you've seen the retina display on the iPhone 4.
As to Display Port why would anyone want that on a tablet as opposed to a SD slot or USB port? Really that one I dont get at all.
The iPad is being rapidly adopted by enterprise customers. Many of them would like the ability to use the iPad for presentations to a large audience.
And yes, these customers know that there are notebook PCs that can do this.
...If the iPad was 4x the res, it would have 5 times the pixels in 7.5 times the area, so almost as high res, and at that point holding it a bit further away when using it, you'd have equally sharp text on a much nicer to use (for surfing / reading) form factor.
I'll happily give up a mini displayport connector for that type of screen....
I think the real issue though is battery life and performance. There is no such thing as a free lunch! Rendering that many more pixels comes at a pretty big cost in performance and therefore battery life - I can't make a good guess at it for this device since I am not familiar with power drain for the disparate screens but I can tell you with great confidence it would be significant. Granted newer GPUs (read multicore) has the potential to add a bunch to existing performance but at what cost?
How much battery life are you willing to give up?
As to Display Port why would anyone want that on a tablet as opposed to a SD slot or USB port? Really that one I dont get at all.
I am a teacher. This would allow me to show powerpoint presentations from the ipad, rather than having to drag my laptop around.
I would gladly pay an extra $15 or whatever the parts cost in order to have cameras that I might actually enjoy using for something, instead of the cheapest bottom-end items that they'd use just to be able to add "camera" to the features list.
There is always a trade off. Are you willing to add more thickness (fairly significant amount) to the iPad? I am but I think most would balk-
Just my two cents.
I still think there is a chance of them not including a rear camera, just because I personally can't see the use. Apple only uses/markets the rear camera for iPhone and iPod Touch for taking still shots and videos, and I can't see Apple pushing this as a reason to use a rear camera on the iPad2 (you may use it for this, but looks silly on if advertised this way). And we all know Apple only puts hardware in their products that they believe is useful, regardless of what the rest of the industry is doing.
I am a teacher. This would allow me to show powerpoint presentations from the ipad, rather than having to drag my laptop around.
You can already do that without DisplayPort. It's called Keynote and the Dock Connector to VGA adapter.
Apple will definitely include 'HD' cameras in the iPad2, as it is so easy to include a camera that is classed as 'HD'.
Why? All evidence points to 0.3 and 1.0 megapixels for the front and rear cameras, respectively. There's no evidence or reason for classifying anything as HD.
I always have my iphone with me. Why do I need another camera. Waste of space and money.
"I have no use for this feature, so obviously it's completely pointless and no one needs it."
That's you.
The iPad is being rapidly adopted by enterprise customers. Many of them would like the ability to use the iPad for presentations to a large audience.
If that's the case, then it should have been HDMI not displayport as HDMI is used by both enterprise and home use more so than display port. Yet another example of a Apple's closed sytem trying to make you buy their own connector. While some monitors may have display port; they all have HDMI.
I always have my iphone with me. Why do I need another camera. Waste of space and money.
And how would you take that picture with your iPhone while reading your iPad with both hands?
I think the real issue though is battery life and performance. There is no such thing as a free lunch! Rendering that many more pixels comes at a pretty big cost in performance and therefore battery life - I can't make a good guess at it for this device since I am not familiar with power drain for the disparate screens but I can tell you with great confidence it would be significant. Granted newer GPUs (read multicore) has the potential to add a bunch to existing performance but at what cost?
How much battery life are you willing to give up?
I read this statement a lot, but I haven't seen any real evidence either way. I'm curious whether anyone has benchmarked a laptop running at various resolutions to see if the battery runtime was impacted when using different resolutions. My instincts tell me it's marginal, but I'd love to see hard data to prove either case.
If that's the case, then it should have been HDMI not displayport as HDMI is used by both enterprise and home use more so than display port. Yet another example of a Apple's closed sytem trying to make you buy their own connector. While some monitors may have display port; they all have HDMI.
You continue to be astoundingly hilarious. DisplayPort is not only an open standard, it's free to adopt. You can't fit six HDMI ports on a graphics card, but ATI puts that many Mini DisplayPort on its high-end graphics walls.
cause people might want to use the ipad as a presentation device connected to a projector instead of logging a laptop around.
I have yet to see a projector in any presentation I've attended that does not have a VGA connector even if it has HDMI.
Given Apple's obvious push for AirPlay, I don't see why they'd want HDMI on their devices any more than they want BluRay on their computers.
I have yet to see a projector in any presentation I've attended that does not have a VGA connector even if it has HDMI.
Given Apple's obvious push for AirPlay, I don't see why they'd want HDMI on their devices any more than they want BluRay on their computers.
Not HDMI- Displayport and the answer is to sell cables.
Projectors use would be a minority of overall iPad users. It use would be primarily to connect to a display.
Businesses dont have displays compatible with the display port, just like more than 90% of consumers. If they are going to put a video out port, it should be HDMI, and it should have 7.1 audio support as well.
1) There is a simple VGA kit that's been available to connect iPad to projectors for months now.
2) 7.1 audio!!??? I doubt that they do 7.1 audio in presentations at Pixar or Lucas, let alone at any other real company. Silliest feature I ever seen suggested.
You continue to be astoundingly hilarious. DisplayPort is not only an open standard, it's free to adopt. You can't fit six HDMI ports on a graphics card, but ATI puts that many Mini DisplayPort on its high-end graphics walls.
So now we're talking about 6 ports yet I'm hilarious?