Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities beyond your eyes being able to resolve, there's the rather large size of 4k dynamic media, which is enough to bulge conventional hard drives let alone a tablets storage at Apple's pricing.
I will tell u EXACTLY why I would buy TWO of these!
Too use as a left and right monitor on a 15" macbook pro for trading stocks while traveling and fixing multiple computers at once while traveling. I would use the iDisplay app for multi-monitor with both in EXTEND mode.
Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities beyond your eyes being able to resolve, there's the rather large size of 4k dynamic media, which is enough to bulge conventional hard drives let alone a tablets storage at Apple's pricing.
1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡
2) Larger files do not "bulge conventional hard drives" unless you're in a cartoon. Do 4K files take up more space than 1080p when using the same codec? Of course, just like 1080p taking up more space than 720p which takes up more space than 480p with the same codec.
3) Note that file sizes have dropped considerably and yet have gotten much higher quality since the days of MPEG-2 on DVDs to the current MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. HEVC/H.265 will allow for files to be reduced by an average of 50% which increased reduction for higher resolution files.
4) Of course, all your hatred here is only when Apple does it, but as soon as others vendors catch up you'll be signing a different tune.
I would consider this unlikely, but today, wishing my iPad was the size of a pad of paper (8 1/2 x 11), I may have to reconsider. An iPad that size and the same weight of a pad of paper might be useful.
8.5" x 11" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio would make the diagonal 13.9". Makes more sense than 12.9". A larger display is desirable for creative pros, but only if it is pressure sensitive with a revamped touch interface, that in addition to the existing one centred around the finger, would also allow for the greater accuracy of a stylus. This would require a finer granularity of the coordinate system in the touch layer and the algorithms necessary to support it. With pressure sensitivity built-in, it would be system-wide and available to all apps.
8.5x11 is only used in North America. The rest of us (the other 93% of people on the planet) use A4 paper which is about 8.27x11.7" and has a diagonal of 14.3". However, I don't understand why a tablet should emulate any of those sizes.
The main question is how Apple would present a new pixel count to developers. When the Mini came it used the same pixel count as its larger siblings so it ran the same apps unchanged. A 12.9" ipad at exactly double the current resolution, i.e. 4096x3072 at near 400ppi, would make for a smooth transition and little hassle for developers.
What OS will it run? They would have to either make some changes to iOS, such as letting it run more than one app at a time, or graft a touch interface onto OS X. Full screen calculator apps make sense for a 4 inch phone with limited screen space, but not so much for a 13 inch tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kkerst
I hope we don't see some type of hybrid device where if used as a laptop, the touch must be used. That's why the Surface has an identity crisis. It has no idea what it wants to be.
On the other hand I could see such a tablet/laptop having its screen disabled when in laptop mode. My true pipe dream would be a device that had an A7 and Intel processor all in one package. That would be a beast.
Actually, a 12.9" iPad Air would be a proper name for a hybrid of a "screen-less" Macbook Air with a 12.9" detachable iPad as its display. When the iPad is docked to the Macbook Air, the iPad becomes the Macbook Air's display that uses Airplay Mirroring through peer-to-peer WiFi to display the Macbook Air on the iPad screen (or through a physical hardwired connection when the iPad is docked to the Macbook Air).
Together, the iPad and the MacBook Air would become either the iPad Air or the iBook - and would weigh about the same as a Macbook Air. The Macbook Air would retain its logic board and battery package beneath the keyboard and track pad. The iPad would retain its logic board beneath its display.
When docked, the iPad becomes the Macbook Air's display, and ceases to be an iPad. However, while the iPad is docked, the user can still access and manipulate the iPad's apps through the Macbook Air's track pad (except apps that require an accelerometer), and naturally use the Macbook Air's keyboard when keying in text. The iPad would have a dock and magnetic connection on the bottom and the left side, to dock to the Macbook Air in both portrait and landscape orientation. Because the iPad powers its own display, the Macbook Air's battery would last longer.
The iBook would be the computer that combines two separate computers in one device, that both function independent of each other, yet work together. Instead of carrying two computers separately, you carry both computers together. You do not use one instead of the other, instead, you use one with the other.
1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡
2) Larger files do not "bulge conventional hard drives" unless you're in a cartoon. Do 4K files take up more space than 1080p when using the same codec? Of course, just like 1080p taking up more space than 720p which takes up more space than 480p with the same codec.
3) Note that file sizes have dropped considerably and yet have gotten much higher quality since the days of MPEG-2 on DVDs to the current MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. HEVC/H.265 will allow for files to be reduced by an average of 50% which increased reduction for higher resolution files.
4) Of course, all your hatred here is only when Apple does it, but as soon as others vendors catch up you'll be signing a different tune.
What a load of disingenuous misdirection. Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago. They are 100 Gb in size. That is enough to strain most portable devices storage components - with or without your prayers to the gods of compression.
Hatred? I am writing this on an original 15" Macbook Pro Retina, I bought an Airport Express yesterday and am returning an Apple TV I bought a week ago, not to mention the 4 other Macs in the house including an SE I bought new (ditched the Imagewriter II) or the 3 iPods or... I am not a great fan of iOS - true - as I belive the eco-system is over priced.
So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡.
Whether that was the intent of his comment or not, the "Retina" display already has more pixels than the eye can individually detect. To cram 4K density into a 13" screen does not make any sense in a consumer device, or even a pro device. The whole movement toward 4K, aside from a way to continue to expand the home entertainment business, is driven primarily by the massive flat screen sizes that are becoming common place in average Americans living rooms thanks to plummeting prices. 1080p looks amazing on a 32" flat screen even from a few feet away, at which close distance few people make a habit of watching TV. But even the average viewing distance of 8 feet away, a 50" screen begins to break down, to say nothing of an 80" screen. In 5 years, 120" screens will likely not be uncommon in many home theaters.
So considering a 13" device like an iPad would not only be taxed to supply the raw processing muscle, not to mention a power supply capable of driving that many pixels, with little or no real world payoff in the ability to benefit from the enhanced resolution at that size, I have a hard time imagining Apple would do this as a first step into 4K. Honestly, who would be able to take advantage of this? Certainly not the iPad's typical users. Apple has been notorious for lacking in their support for professional photographers on the iPad, one of the few who might benefit from such pixel depth, so who would they be doing this for (or have they turned over a new leaf)? Doctors who want to look at X-rays and cat scans? Even those arguably don't need higher resolution than is already offered on the iPad. And aside from movies, the iPad is primarily a scalable device anyway, relying on software to resolve pixels through sophisticed algorithms at larger than native sizes. That won't change thanks to added pixel density, any more than it did from the original iPad to the Air. People will still mostly be looking at images in something other than their native resolution.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a totally unrealistic rumor to me. If Apple were going 4K, it seems likely they would make that jump first where it would count the most -- the desktop, or Apple TV, skipping Retina altogether, then merely to consolidate compatibility across platforms, add it to the iPad when cost and power issues were resolved.
My original post had one quote. I wanted to edit the post to include multiple quotes. Since I couldn't delete the post, and didn't want to double-post, I copied the text of the original post, performed a multi-quote in a new post, and pasted the copied text in the new post -after which I went to the original post, and edited it by changing the text to "See post #50".
Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago. They are 100 Gb in size.
lol. If 1080p downloads are 4GB, 4K shouldn’t be more than 16.
You’re using Sony as an example of what TO do? Of optimization? Of making a standard or anything anyone would want to use? Come on, man. Have an actual argument. When SD cards came out, Sony made their own crap. When FireWire was released, Sony gave it their own name and refused to use anything but 4-pin. When Thunderbolt was finalized, Sony ignored the standard and illegally made a USB-based version of it.
Sony has 100GB downloads because they’re idiots. Talk about disingenuous misdirection!
There’s a plan in the industry to move from pixel-based files to vector based video. That’ll take down file sizes by an order of magnitude.
I still think Apple will launch an A7 MBA, and this screen might just be the thing for that project. It could be that the folks at Foxconn saw iPad-like components and a large screen and thought oh! an iPad device. I do not see a purpose for a larger, heavier iPad, but I do see a next gen laptop.
My only hope is that if there is an iPad Pro that it will finally include real stylus support. Hopefully something best of class.
Not sure there's much practical benefit to a 4k screen even at 12.9 inches.
What interests me even more than the hardware is that Apple wouldn't attempt an iPad Pro unless there was some software to push it into a big draw to some crowd. Some sort of content creation is going to be getting a boost on tablets if/when this thing is released by Apple.
Comments
8.5" x 11" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio would make the diagonal 13.9".
Except that an 8.5" x 11" display can never have a 4:3 aspect ratio. It always has an 11:8.5 aspect ratio.
Now an 8.25" x 11" display... there's 4:3. With a 13.75" diagonal.
Apart from the pointlessness of 4K at pixel densities beyond your eyes being able to resolve, there's the rather large size of 4k dynamic media, which is enough to bulge conventional hard drives let alone a tablets storage at Apple's pricing.
Too use as a left and right monitor on a 15" macbook pro for trading stocks while traveling and fixing multiple computers at once while traveling. I would use the iDisplay app for multi-monitor with both in EXTEND mode.
1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡
2) Larger files do not "bulge conventional hard drives" unless you're in a cartoon. Do 4K files take up more space than 1080p when using the same codec? Of course, just like 1080p taking up more space than 720p which takes up more space than 480p with the same codec.
3) Note that file sizes have dropped considerably and yet have gotten much higher quality since the days of MPEG-2 on DVDs to the current MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. HEVC/H.265 will allow for files to be reduced by an average of 50% which increased reduction for higher resolution files.
4) Of course, all your hatred here is only when Apple does it, but as soon as others vendors catch up you'll be signing a different tune.
I would consider this unlikely, but today, wishing my iPad was the size of a pad of paper (8 1/2 x 11), I may have to reconsider. An iPad that size and the same weight of a pad of paper might be useful.
8.5" x 11" display with a 4:3 aspect ratio would make the diagonal 13.9". Makes more sense than 12.9". A larger display is desirable for creative pros, but only if it is pressure sensitive with a revamped touch interface, that in addition to the existing one centred around the finger, would also allow for the greater accuracy of a stylus. This would require a finer granularity of the coordinate system in the touch layer and the algorithms necessary to support it. With pressure sensitivity built-in, it would be system-wide and available to all apps.
8.5x11 is only used in North America. The rest of us (the other 93% of people on the planet) use A4 paper which is about 8.27x11.7" and has a diagonal of 14.3". However, I don't understand why a tablet should emulate any of those sizes.
See post #50.
The main question is how Apple would present a new pixel count to developers. When the Mini came it used the same pixel count as its larger siblings so it ran the same apps unchanged. A 12.9" ipad at exactly double the current resolution, i.e. 4096x3072 at near 400ppi, would make for a smooth transition and little hassle for developers.
What OS will it run? They would have to either make some changes to iOS, such as letting it run more than one app at a time, or graft a touch interface onto OS X. Full screen calculator apps make sense for a 4 inch phone with limited screen space, but not so much for a 13 inch tablet.
I hope we don't see some type of hybrid device where if used as a laptop, the touch must be used. That's why the Surface has an identity crisis. It has no idea what it wants to be.
Check this out, I remember this keynote: http://www.businessinsider.com/steve-jobs-touch-screen-mac-2010-10
On the other hand I could see such a tablet/laptop having its screen disabled when in laptop mode. My true pipe dream would be a device that had an A7 and Intel processor all in one package. That would be a beast.
Actually, a 12.9" iPad Air would be a proper name for a hybrid of a "screen-less" Macbook Air with a 12.9" detachable iPad as its display. When the iPad is docked to the Macbook Air, the iPad becomes the Macbook Air's display that uses Airplay Mirroring through peer-to-peer WiFi to display the Macbook Air on the iPad screen (or through a physical hardwired connection when the iPad is docked to the Macbook Air).
Together, the iPad and the MacBook Air would become either the iPad Air or the iBook - and would weigh about the same as a Macbook Air. The Macbook Air would retain its logic board and battery package beneath the keyboard and track pad. The iPad would retain its logic board beneath its display.
When docked, the iPad becomes the Macbook Air's display, and ceases to be an iPad. However, while the iPad is docked, the user can still access and manipulate the iPad's apps through the Macbook Air's track pad (except apps that require an accelerometer), and naturally use the Macbook Air's keyboard when keying in text. The iPad would have a dock and magnetic connection on the bottom and the left side, to dock to the Macbook Air in both portrait and landscape orientation. Because the iPad powers its own display, the Macbook Air's battery would last longer.
The iBook would be the computer that combines two separate computers in one device, that both function independent of each other, yet work together. Instead of carrying two computers separately, you carry both computers together. You do not use one instead of the other, instead, you use one with the other.
1) So you're saying we should keep pixel densities at a point where we can still resolve individual pixels? Brilliant¡
2) Larger files do not "bulge conventional hard drives" unless you're in a cartoon. Do 4K files take up more space than 1080p when using the same codec? Of course, just like 1080p taking up more space than 720p which takes up more space than 480p with the same codec.
3) Note that file sizes have dropped considerably and yet have gotten much higher quality since the days of MPEG-2 on DVDs to the current MPEG-4 AVC/H.264. HEVC/H.265 will allow for files to be reduced by an average of 50% which increased reduction for higher resolution files.
4) Of course, all your hatred here is only when Apple does it, but as soon as others vendors catch up you'll be signing a different tune.
What a load of disingenuous misdirection. Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago. They are 100 Gb in size. That is enough to strain most portable devices storage components - with or without your prayers to the gods of compression.
Hatred? I am writing this on an original 15" Macbook Pro Retina, I bought an Airport Express yesterday and am returning an Apple TV I bought a week ago, not to mention the 4 other Macs in the house including an SE I bought new (ditched the Imagewriter II) or the 3 iPods or... I am not a great fan of iOS - true - as I belive the eco-system is over priced.
Whether that was the intent of his comment or not, the "Retina" display already has more pixels than the eye can individually detect. To cram 4K density into a 13" screen does not make any sense in a consumer device, or even a pro device. The whole movement toward 4K, aside from a way to continue to expand the home entertainment business, is driven primarily by the massive flat screen sizes that are becoming common place in average Americans living rooms thanks to plummeting prices. 1080p looks amazing on a 32" flat screen even from a few feet away, at which close distance few people make a habit of watching TV. But even the average viewing distance of 8 feet away, a 50" screen begins to break down, to say nothing of an 80" screen. In 5 years, 120" screens will likely not be uncommon in many home theaters.
So considering a 13" device like an iPad would not only be taxed to supply the raw processing muscle, not to mention a power supply capable of driving that many pixels, with little or no real world payoff in the ability to benefit from the enhanced resolution at that size, I have a hard time imagining Apple would do this as a first step into 4K. Honestly, who would be able to take advantage of this? Certainly not the iPad's typical users. Apple has been notorious for lacking in their support for professional photographers on the iPad, one of the few who might benefit from such pixel depth, so who would they be doing this for (or have they turned over a new leaf)? Doctors who want to look at X-rays and cat scans? Even those arguably don't need higher resolution than is already offered on the iPad. And aside from movies, the iPad is primarily a scalable device anyway, relying on software to resolve pixels through sophisticed algorithms at larger than native sizes. That won't change thanks to added pixel density, any more than it did from the original iPad to the Air. People will still mostly be looking at images in something other than their native resolution.
Unless I'm missing something, this seems like a totally unrealistic rumor to me. If Apple were going 4K, it seems likely they would make that jump first where it would count the most -- the desktop, or Apple TV, skipping Retina altogether, then merely to consolidate compatibility across platforms, add it to the iPad when cost and power issues were resolved.
How did you predict a future post?!
My original post had one quote. I wanted to edit the post to include multiple quotes. Since I couldn't delete the post, and didn't want to double-post, I copied the text of the original post, performed a multi-quote in a new post, and pasted the copied text in the new post -after which I went to the original post, and edited it by changing the text to "See post #50".
What a load of disingenuous misdirection. Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago. They are 100 Gb in size.
"Average title download size is approximately 50 GB" - http://us.support.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3848.
"Average title download size is approximately 50 GB" - http://us.support.sonyentertainmentnetwork.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/3848.
Considering my original argument, does that make any real difference?
Sony started the world's first 4K downloads only four months ago. They are 100 Gb in size.
lol. If 1080p downloads are 4GB, 4K shouldn’t be more than 16.
You’re using Sony as an example of what TO do? Of optimization? Of making a standard or anything anyone would want to use? Come on, man. Have an actual argument. When SD cards came out, Sony made their own crap. When FireWire was released, Sony gave it their own name and refused to use anything but 4-pin. When Thunderbolt was finalized, Sony ignored the standard and illegally made a USB-based version of it.
Sony has 100GB downloads because they’re idiots. Talk about disingenuous misdirection!
There’s a plan in the industry to move from pixel-based files to vector based video. That’ll take down file sizes by an order of magnitude.
I still think Apple will launch an A7 MBA, and this screen might just be the thing for that project. It could be that the folks at Foxconn saw iPad-like components and a large screen and thought oh! an iPad device. I do not see a purpose for a larger, heavier iPad, but I do see a next gen laptop.
Mmmmmuummm! Three sizes - small, medium and larger! If true, maybe a larger iPhone 6 is assured.
They have nothing to do with each other. When the Mini came out did they bring out a 3" iPhone?
We will eventually see a larger iPad, and we will eventually see a larger iPhone. Just a matter of when.
Not sure there's much practical benefit to a 4k screen even at 12.9 inches.
What interests me even more than the hardware is that Apple wouldn't attempt an iPad Pro unless there was some software to push it into a big draw to some crowd. Some sort of content creation is going to be getting a boost on tablets if/when this thing is released by Apple.
lol. If 1080p downloads are 4GB, 4K shouldn’t be more than 16.
Well, according to Sony's website, 2TB will hold approximately 45 full-featured movies at 38GB per movie.
So that's over twice your estimation and over half of cnocbui's.
Lol, truth is often in the middle
Keep those hardware boners in your pants, folks. It's only a rumor.
What kind of hardware would it be if it wasn't a boner.