A whole year and they can't come up with a new model? S and now HD? Sounds like fragmentation.
rc69 may be a curmudgeon (judging by previous posts) but I gotta believe this post was meant to be witty (sarcasm). As such,
Its funny.
On the subject of naming - I am happy with iPad 2, iPad 3 or iPad HD. Any one will do just fine. iPad RD would have been the clever name, but really, what's in a name? Not every company seems to get it but Apple does - naming a product is just marketing and so HD is the one. It will appeal to the masses, it says 'new and improved', focussing attention on the screen and not building up expectations of a radically different looking iPad.
I don't know how can you deduct that the next iPad won't have the A6 because they've decided to go with iPad HD instead of the iPad 3? Now maybe if they decided to name it iPad 2 HD, then it will make sense.
iPhone 4
iPhone 4s <- minor
iPad 2
iPad 2 HD <- minor, A5x
iPad 2
iPad HD <- um, can't really deduct anything.
Although the name could be HD, this article is really bad.... Its full of statements that are simply false in their logic, like you point out here....
iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.
I disagree, the 2 year cycle of the iPhone market which is tied to the 2 year contract should not be confused with the iPad market. This upgrade is major. People will buy a lot of them including iPad 2 owners....
If indeed it does cost significantly more to manufacture, then I can see Apple naming the newest iPad the HD and raising the base price, while retaining the iPad 2 at its current price. That way it won't seem like the iPad just got more expensive, only that a more pro model has been added to the line up. Sales of the iPad 2 don't seem to have slowed so it could very easily continue to do well without a discount, and the iPad HD could still seem a good value even at a hundred dollars more. After all, you can't get that kind of a resolution right now in the priciest of Apple's MacBooks!
I agree that it doesn't make sense. To call a 4:3 screen "HD" is to bastardize the term. If a TV maker did it, the FTC would rightly call them to the carpet for misleading advertising.
HD doesn't refer to 16:9 aspect ratio. HD can come in many different aspect ratios. Having extra vertical resolution doesn't disqualify a display from being HD.
iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.
If they name it iPad 2 HD I'll eat my iPad 1.
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz
IMO, a retina display on the new iPad would be a total game changer. Like night and day. Much more so than an incremental increase in CPU speed. And much more apparent to average consumers.
Which is why 'HD' makes sense. It really doesn't matter where in the sequence of iPads it comes or what previous naming conventions point to. 'HD' says one thing only - 'screen'. The rest is really secondary, even Siri.
HD doesn't refer to 16:9 aspect ratio. HD can come in many different aspect ratios. Having extra vertical resolution doesn't disqualify a display from being HD.
Can you point to any 4:3 displays advertised as HD? And to any of the "Many different aspect ratios" currently being sold as "HD"?
Can you point to any 4:3 displays advertised as HD?
1) Modern HD is defined by 720p of horizontal lines and leaves the number of vertical lines open as the width varies. After 1080p became a reality and with HD already taken 1080p became known as FHD for Full High Definition. This follows the same pattern as 720p.
2) Can you point to any displays that advertised Retina Display before the iPhone 4 came out? Of course not, but that doesn't mean Apple wasn't allowed to use the term for marketing purposes.
3) There are at least 3 video standards that use "HD" in their name and are 1440x1080 resolution. The Panasonic DVCPRO HD 1080, HDV 1080i/1080, and
Sony HDCAM (1080).
PS: Note that Full Aperture Native 2K has a resolution of 2048 × 1556 for an aspect ratio of 1.32:1. The rumoured iPad will be 2048x1536 with a 1.33: asepect ratio. Both are generically listed as 4:3 aspect ratio because they are that close.
Just call the darn thing iPad and be done with it. Apple's computers and iPods don't have numbers in their naming convention. I say stop with the numbers for iPhone and iPad too.
Please explain to me how Apple can 'stop with numbers' when its selling 3 generations of iPhones at once? They don't use numbers for their other products because they dont sell them concurrently- they get replaced, ie. laptops, iMacs, laptops, etc. Just a small detail you seem to have missed.
HD in today's market is used to refer to resolutions like 720p and 1080p.
And there's already an upper-limit for use of the "HD" term, with terms like "2K" and "4K" starting to replace "HD" in the industry for displays with larger numbers of pixels.
In fact, the rumored iPad 'retina' display resolution of 2,048x1,536 (150% the pixels of 1080p HD) falls neatly into the "2K" display category.
So, yes, I think it's reasonable to say "HD" severely under-states the rumored iPad 3 resolution.
The problem is that there is no previously defined 2k resolution that is near 1536 scan lines. 2048x1080 is the closest. So if one is going to be a stickler for specific dimensions, then it's still out.
In reality, "HD" doesn't always mean one of two resolutions, except in the TV market. Heck, people were mentioning HD meaning iPad version of software.
2) Can you point to any displays that advertised Retina Display before the iPhone 4 came out? Of course not, but that doesn't mean Apple wasn't allowed to use the term for marketing purposes.
You seem to have it backwards. Apple is free to coin a new term. But Apple is not welcome to use a well-known term in an incorrect manner.
Doing so would be akin to calling an SD TV a Retina Display.
Or maybe in the AppleSpeak world, any term can have any meaning. If so, I call the current iPad display a Widescreen display.
You seem to have it backwards. Apple is free to coin a new term. But Apple is not welcome to use a well-known term in an incorrect manner.
Doing so would be akin to calling an SD TV a Retina Display.
Or maybe in the AppleSpeak world, any term can have any meaning. If so, I call the current iPad display a Widescreen display.
HD would be used incorrectly because they used it on a 4:3 display even though it contain every 720p and 1080p resolutions? It is protected by Marketing Nomenclature Act of 1888?
Comments
A whole year and they can't come up with a new model? S and now HD? Sounds like fragmentation.
rc69 may be a curmudgeon (judging by previous posts) but I gotta believe this post was meant to be witty (sarcasm). As such,
Its funny.
On the subject of naming - I am happy with iPad 2, iPad 3 or iPad HD. Any one will do just fine. iPad RD would have been the clever name, but really, what's in a name? Not every company seems to get it but Apple does - naming a product is just marketing and so HD is the one. It will appeal to the masses, it says 'new and improved', focussing attention on the screen and not building up expectations of a radically different looking iPad.
Person 1: Got me an iPad HD.
Person 2: Well, I got me an iPad 2.
Person 3 won't know who to sidle up to.
I don't know how can you deduct that the next iPad won't have the A6 because they've decided to go with iPad HD instead of the iPad 3? Now maybe if they decided to name it iPad 2 HD, then it will make sense.
iPhone 4
iPhone 4s <- minor
iPad 2
iPad 2 HD <- minor, A5x
iPad 2
iPad HD <- um, can't really deduct anything.
Although the name could be HD, this article is really bad.... Its full of statements that are simply false in their logic, like you point out here....
There is no way they will name it iPad HD and continue selling iPad 2, because it is not clear from the name, to non-Apple fanatics, which is better.
Person 1: Got me an iPad HD.
Person 2: Well, I got me an iPad 2.
Person 3 won't know who to sidle up to.
What's the difference? The HD has an amazing screen. Really? (sidles up)
Its not complicated.
iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.
I disagree, the 2 year cycle of the iPhone market which is tied to the 2 year contract should not be confused with the iPad market. This upgrade is major. People will buy a lot of them including iPad 2 owners....
I agree that it doesn't make sense. To call a 4:3 screen "HD" is to bastardize the term. If a TV maker did it, the FTC would rightly call them to the carpet for misleading advertising.
HD doesn't refer to 16:9 aspect ratio. HD can come in many different aspect ratios. Having extra vertical resolution doesn't disqualify a display from being HD.
iPad 2 HD sounds about right. Apple tends to save major version upgrades for products that look physically different. I think it's also part of their planned upgrade cycles for customers. Apple knows most people who bought an iPad 2 aren't going to rush out and buy an iPad 2012 model. So they keep the design and name similar to communicate that the new model has 'nice to have' features but isn't such a huge generational leap that you should have buyers remorse over your previous generation model. The new display will be beautiful but I still think it's a 'nice to have' feature not a 'must have' feature for most people.
If they name it iPad 2 HD I'll eat my iPad 1.
IMO, a retina display on the new iPad would be a total game changer. Like night and day. Much more so than an incremental increase in CPU speed. And much more apparent to average consumers.
Which is why 'HD' makes sense. It really doesn't matter where in the sequence of iPads it comes or what previous naming conventions point to. 'HD' says one thing only - 'screen'. The rest is really secondary, even Siri.
HD doesn't refer to 16:9 aspect ratio. HD can come in many different aspect ratios. Having extra vertical resolution doesn't disqualify a display from being HD.
Can you point to any 4:3 displays advertised as HD? And to any of the "Many different aspect ratios" currently being sold as "HD"?
Ugh.
Can you point to any 4:3 displays advertised as HD?
1) Modern HD is defined by 720p of horizontal lines and leaves the number of vertical lines open as the width varies. After 1080p became a reality and with HD already taken 1080p became known as FHD for Full High Definition. This follows the same pattern as 720p.
2) Can you point to any displays that advertised Retina Display before the iPhone 4 came out? Of course not, but that doesn't mean Apple wasn't allowed to use the term for marketing purposes.
3) There are at least 3 video standards that use "HD" in their name and are 1440x1080 resolution. The Panasonic DVCPRO HD 1080, HDV 1080i/1080, and
Sony HDCAM (1080).
PS: Note that Full Aperture Native 2K has a resolution of 2048 × 1556 for an aspect ratio of 1.32:1. The rumoured iPad will be 2048x1536 with a 1.33: asepect ratio. Both are generically listed as 4:3 aspect ratio because they are that close.
Just call the darn thing iPad and be done with it. Apple's computers and iPods don't have numbers in their naming convention. I say stop with the numbers for iPhone and iPad too.
Please explain to me how Apple can 'stop with numbers' when its selling 3 generations of iPhones at once? They don't use numbers for their other products because they dont sell them concurrently- they get replaced, ie. laptops, iMacs, laptops, etc. Just a small detail you seem to have missed.
There is no way they will name it iPad HD and continue selling iPad 2, because it is not clear from the name, to non-Apple fanatics, which is better.
Person 1: Got me an iPad HD.
Person 2: Well, I got me an iPad 2.
Person 3 won't know who to sidle up to.
It will be clear from the price. Obviously the pricier model will be the better one. Also, the website and Apple stores will make that clear.
HD in today's market is used to refer to resolutions like 720p and 1080p.
And there's already an upper-limit for use of the "HD" term, with terms like "2K" and "4K" starting to replace "HD" in the industry for displays with larger numbers of pixels.
In fact, the rumored iPad 'retina' display resolution of 2,048x1,536 (150% the pixels of 1080p HD) falls neatly into the "2K" display category.
So, yes, I think it's reasonable to say "HD" severely under-states the rumored iPad 3 resolution.
The problem is that there is no previously defined 2k resolution that is near 1536 scan lines. 2048x1080 is the closest. So if one is going to be a stickler for specific dimensions, then it's still out.
In reality, "HD" doesn't always mean one of two resolutions, except in the TV market. Heck, people were mentioning HD meaning iPad version of software.
The problem is that there is no previously defined 2k resolution that is near 1536 scan lines. 2048x1080 is the closest.
Full Aperture Native 2K
Full Aperture Native 2K
Huh, that escaped my notice.
2) Can you point to any displays that advertised Retina Display before the iPhone 4 came out? Of course not, but that doesn't mean Apple wasn't allowed to use the term for marketing purposes.
You seem to have it backwards. Apple is free to coin a new term. But Apple is not welcome to use a well-known term in an incorrect manner.
Doing so would be akin to calling an SD TV a Retina Display.
Or maybe in the AppleSpeak world, any term can have any meaning. If so, I call the current iPad display a Widescreen display.
There is no way they will name it iPad HD and continue selling iPad 2, because it is not clear from the name, to non-Apple fanatics, which is better.
Person 1: Got me an iPad HD.
Person 2: Well, I got me an iPad 2.
Person 3 won't know who to sidle up to.
It will be clear from the price. Obviously the pricier model will be the better one. Also, the website and Apple stores will make that clear.
Or, presumably, they just take a glance at the screen. If this is all true, then that's all that needs to happen.
You seem to have it backwards. Apple is free to coin a new term. But Apple is not welcome to use a well-known term in an incorrect manner.
Doing so would be akin to calling an SD TV a Retina Display.
Or maybe in the AppleSpeak world, any term can have any meaning. If so, I call the current iPad display a Widescreen display.
HD would be used incorrectly because they used it on a 4:3 display even though it contain every 720p and 1080p resolutions? It is protected by Marketing Nomenclature Act of 1888?
HD would be used incorrectly because they used it on a 4:# display even though it contain every 720p and 1080p resolutions?
Correct.