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.
Talk about disengenuous misdirection. This is an article about display resolutions where you are now trying to weasel your way out with comment about Sony and 4K downloads. These are not tied together. There is no 2048x1536 or 2880x1800 from the iTunes Store just because Apple uses this on their iPad and MBP, respectively.
But let me get back to your original foolish comment. You stated t's pointless to have pixel densities the eyes couldn't resolve. If you keep the pixel densities where the eyes can still resolve the individual pixels then the displays are not Retina by Apple's standards (assuming you aren't less than 1% of the population with exceptionally good eyesight for the minimal level that qualifies as Retina). Perhaps you meant that it's foolish to continue quadrupling the number of the pixels once you achieve Retina quality but you neither stated in that in your original comment nor corrected yourself in your reply to me despite me giving you an out.
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.
You complaining about comically bulging hard drives despite it having nothing to do with how an OS will handle a denser display panel and you complained about how much Apple charges. It sure doesn't sound like you're a fan, and DaHarder-ing a post claiming what you own doesn't help your position.
PS: You have addressed any of the points on HEVC made.
I could see Apple bring out the larger iPad. More power, memory and stronger battery to stand up to more continues use. With all kinds of ports to attach every thing from a keyboard to big screen monitor. At 12.9 inches is still small enough to carry around yet do the same work of a laptop computer. I can really see the large iPad.
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.
Not really. The 2x resolution skip was useful because the screen size remained the same between the non-retina and retina version. It enabled developers to keep the same exact layouts while the OS automatically converted coordinates by multiplying them by 2.
If the screen size changes significantly, developers have to redesign their apps layouts anyway, they can't simply make everything bigger because it would look ridiculous and waste screen estate.
So a 2x skip wouldn't make it easier for developers in this case. There won't be a magical way to convert coordinates for a bigger screen like there was for the iPhone/iPad transition to retina.
And going over 326 PPI will make it much harder for developers than any iOS transition they've had before, because it would make existing bitmaps and touch targets too small. So not only they would have to change the position of their UI elements to make use of the bigger screen, something which will be handled in part by the auto-layout APIs introduced with iOS6, but they would need to scale up all their touch targets and maintain yet another set of bitmap assets to compensate, something that the iOS auto-layout APIs are not designed for.
If Apple is set to release a 12.9" iPad in 2014, I predict it will be between 264 ppi (iPad air) and 326 ppi (mini retina and iPhone), and more likely 264 ppi which will be plenty enough for 95%+ of the population, considering that this device will be held farther for the eyes than even an iPad air.
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
The truth is in the codec and quality being utilized and TS's logic is sound. Remember that a video is just a series of images and sound placed into a container. Let's remove the container and sound and focus on a single frame of a video file.
Let's say that 1080p, which translates to 1920x1080. For a given level of data per pixel (read: the same info per pixel) the file shouldn't exceed more than 4x that of 4K because 4K is exactly 4x the number of pixels of 1080p. Now this value will usually be much less given the magic of the codec to only give pointers to pixels that have already used that same pixel data.
It's only going to be higher than the same level of data on 4K over 1080p if you make the data denser per pixel or make other changes like adding higher quality audio, more channels, more languages, or even more video and supplemental files, all of which is possible since Sony is trying hard to market 4K.
So the reality is for any reasonable vendor you'll get files less 4K files less than 4x over 1080p for a given codec, which is itself pointless since 4K video files (which are different from 4K monitors) shouldn't even be a consideration until we have H.265 chips in our HW will further reduce file sizes by up to half which means the 4K files you eventually see on the iTunes Store won't be much more than the current 1080p files as to detract their intended market.
As things stand now, I would not buy a 13 inch iPad. I would rather buy a Mac air or even an iMac instead. If the iPad cost $800 you know a 13 inch iPad will cost 1200.
Big deal. It would surprise me if they weren't. However there's a huge difference between a prototype and a shipping unit. Until this actualy ships this is a non-story.
Well on a rumor site it isn't a non-story. But it's certainly nothing for anybody to get excited about.
As things stand now, I would not buy a 13 inch iPad. I would rather buy a Mac air or even an iMac instead. If the iPad cost $800 you know a 13 inch iPad will cost 1200.
Everyone is so eager to predict what you think about a product until it's been unveiled. There might be something more to it that just a change in screen size.
If Apple is set to release a 12.9" iPad in 2014, I predict it will be between 264 ppi (iPad air) and 326 ppi (mini retina and iPhone), and more likely 264 ppi which will be plenty enough for 95%+ of the population, considering that this device will be held farther for the eyes than even an iPad air.
Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).
If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).
If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
Agreed. I suspect the only people holding the iPad Mini closer than the iPad Air are children. (Edit: and probably the people like me whose eyes suck and they're trying to see what that tiny text says! )
Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).
If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
The retina MacBook Pro screen is "only" 227 ppi and I don't see a lot of people complaining about that. But let's forget about the proximity from the eyes bit.
The iPad air resolution is already good enough for 95%+ of people at 264 ppi. Heck, a lot of people can't even see the difference between a retina and non-retia iOS device. The only situation where I really notice the pixels on my iPad 3 is when some 3D game shows highly contrasted polygons without anti-aliasing.And that could be fixed by hardware anti-aliasing.
But whatever, my original point was that there is no good reason to go over 326 ppi for a 12.9" iPad pro, as doing so would introduce a lot of unnecessary hassles for developers because it would make everything too small, including most importantly buttons and other touch targets, while only benefiting a very small portion of the population.
But whatever, my original point was that there is no good reason to go over 326 ppi for a 12.9" iPad pro, as doing so would introduce a lot of unnecessary hassles for developers because it would make everything too small, including most importantly buttons and other touch targets, while only benefiting a very small portion of the population.
I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.
I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.
I wonder if Apple can go to a 16:10 aspect ratio @ 326ppi for a bigger iPad Pro.
I wonder if Apple can go to a 16:10 aspect ratio @ 326ppi for a bigger iPad Pro.
If they were going to go bigger I'd think 264 ppi is sufficient, but since we're likely talking an entirely new UI akin to going from the iPhone to the iPad they could really chose anything that would still maintain Retina quality from a natural holding position.
The truth is in the codec and quality being utilized and TS's logic is sound. Remember that a video is just a series of images and sound placed into a container. Let's remove the container and sound and focus on a single frame of a video file.
Let's say that 1080p, which translates to 1920x1080. For a given level of data per pixel (read: the same info per pixel) the file shouldn't exceed more than 4x that of 4K because 4K is exactly 4x the number of pixels of 1080p. Now this value will usually be much less given the magic of the codec to only give pointers to pixels that have already used that same pixel data.
It's only going to be higher than the same level of data on 4K over 1080p if you make the data denser per pixel or make other changes like adding higher quality audio, more channels, more languages, or even more video and supplemental files, all of which is possible since Sony is trying hard to market 4K.
So the reality is for any reasonable vendor you'll get files less 4K files less than 4x over 1080p for a given codec, which is itself pointless since 4K video files (which are different from 4K monitors) shouldn't even be a consideration until we have H.265 chips in our HW will further reduce file sizes by up to half which means the 4K files you eventually see on the iTunes Store won't be much more than the current 1080p files as to detract their intended market.
In the near future we'll have cheaper, faster broadband connections with a higher data limit, and that will ease the transition to 4K, but at the moment the reality is 4K content is at 40-60GB. Sony did say they're hoping that future codecs will slash the file size in half, but that's still a 20-30GB file.
I do not believe that Sony is serving large files because they're idiots, Sony is using MPEG4 which is an efficient codec. The only way to decrease the size of the file is to reduce the quality of the image, or increase the load on the processor. The latter might also work better in the future with better chips tuned to chomp MPEGs.
Moreover, the MPEG4 codec is more than just a series of images with a sound file, the codec uses many technologies, such as frames. The P-Frame, a vector motion frame, makes for smaller MPEGs when elements in a footage moves in 2D space, but has no effect of zooming footage.
Quote: Originally Posted by AppleInsider Retina display with a 2,048-by-1,536 pixel resolution, which by many standards is already a 2K panel
thats a Retina display.. no only the resolution on iPad its higher than the 2K (2048 x 1536 vs 1920 x 1080) but also has 264 ppi that makes it a 4K resolution or even better
Quote: Originally Posted by rgroves It would be nice if they give the iPhone an hd screen before jumping to 2K or 4K screens on the iPad
If you want a HD iPhone buy the iPhone 3gs or the first one now you have something better a "retina".. the first iPhone resolution (480 x 320) was not a big deal but the 163 ppi was greater than almost all Full HD TV's 50 ppi that was released back in 2009
typical media tech reffered to Retina as market term but now every other electronics are using it inclunding HDTV's around 140 ppi
if Apple wouldn't made Retina for iPhone 4 the smartphones of today like that ceap plastic phablet Samsung Gallaxy S4 the specs on paper will be like this 1920 x 1080p - 74 ppi
I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.
Good point, but it would make it soooo much easier for devs if they could use the same set of buttons/bitmaps and touch target and font sizes across all iOS devices.
Also, showing iPad (mini) apps on a 12.9" would make them look huge and clunky so this would only be a stopgap measure anyway, much less important than keeping consistency for developers.
The iPad resolution was not a direct multiple of the iPhone resolution and while the density changed, it got lower so touch targets getting a little bigger physically was not a problem requiring resizing of those elements.
How about 3072x2304 at a more reasonable 298 ppi? Non-retina versions of unoptimized iPad apps could be shown at 3x full screen while avoiding fractional scaling. Not ideal but exactly what Apple did at first for iPhone backward compatibility on iPads.
And the fact that iPhone apps on iPads didn't look good certainly helped accelerate the development of native iPad apps.
In the near future we'll have cheaper, faster broadband connections with a higher data limit, and that will ease the transition to 4K, but at the moment the reality is 4K content is at 40-60GB. Sony did say they're hoping that future codecs will slash the file size in half, but that's still a 20-30GB file.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">I do not believe that Sony is serving large files because they're idiots, Sony is using MPEG4 which is an efficient codec. The only way to decrease the size of the file is to reduce the quality of the image, or </span>
increase<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> the load on the processor. The latter might also work better in the future with better chips tuned to chomp MPEGs. </span>
Moreover, the MPEG4 codec is more than just a series of images with a sound file, the codec uses many technologies, such as frames. The P-Frame, a vector motion frame, makes for smaller MPEGs when elements in a footage moves in 2D space, but has no effect of zooming footage.
There is no reality that states "4K content is at 40-60GB." Content simply doesn't work that way. There are multiple factors that are making Sony's content that size, assuming the statement of a low end of 40GB and high end of 60GB are accurate.
You have to consider the codec (which you have), the codec profile utilized, the length of the video, as well as the audio file size, and other options and features that make up the contents in the container.
I would wager Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual (and perhaps audio) experience for those who have the money to buy their 4K HDTVs. That means you can expect the profile to be much higher than you would expect for Netflix, ITS, Amazon or YouTube for a given pixel's worth of data.
The only truth is that 4x as many pixels does not mean files will need to be 20-30x larger for a given duration and per-pixel quality.
Comments
Talk about disengenuous misdirection. This is an article about display resolutions where you are now trying to weasel your way out with comment about Sony and 4K downloads. These are not tied together. There is no 2048x1536 or 2880x1800 from the iTunes Store just because Apple uses this on their iPad and MBP, respectively.
But let me get back to your original foolish comment. You stated t's pointless to have pixel densities the eyes couldn't resolve. If you keep the pixel densities where the eyes can still resolve the individual pixels then the displays are not Retina by Apple's standards (assuming you aren't less than 1% of the population with exceptionally good eyesight for the minimal level that qualifies as Retina). Perhaps you meant that it's foolish to continue quadrupling the number of the pixels once you achieve Retina quality but you neither stated in that in your original comment nor corrected yourself in your reply to me despite me giving you an out.
You complaining about comically bulging hard drives despite it having nothing to do with how an OS will handle a denser display panel and you complained about how much Apple charges. It sure doesn't sound like you're a fan, and DaHarder-ing a post claiming what you own doesn't help your position.
PS: You have addressed any of the points on HEVC made.
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.
Not really. The 2x resolution skip was useful because the screen size remained the same between the non-retina and retina version. It enabled developers to keep the same exact layouts while the OS automatically converted coordinates by multiplying them by 2.
If the screen size changes significantly, developers have to redesign their apps layouts anyway, they can't simply make everything bigger because it would look ridiculous and waste screen estate.
So a 2x skip wouldn't make it easier for developers in this case. There won't be a magical way to convert coordinates for a bigger screen like there was for the iPhone/iPad transition to retina.
And going over 326 PPI will make it much harder for developers than any iOS transition they've had before, because it would make existing bitmaps and touch targets too small. So not only they would have to change the position of their UI elements to make use of the bigger screen, something which will be handled in part by the auto-layout APIs introduced with iOS6, but they would need to scale up all their touch targets and maintain yet another set of bitmap assets to compensate, something that the iOS auto-layout APIs are not designed for.
If Apple is set to release a 12.9" iPad in 2014, I predict it will be between 264 ppi (iPad air) and 326 ppi (mini retina and iPhone), and more likely 264 ppi which will be plenty enough for 95%+ of the population, considering that this device will be held farther for the eyes than even an iPad air.
The truth is in the codec and quality being utilized and TS's logic is sound. Remember that a video is just a series of images and sound placed into a container. Let's remove the container and sound and focus on a single frame of a video file.
Let's say that 1080p, which translates to 1920x1080. For a given level of data per pixel (read: the same info per pixel) the file shouldn't exceed more than 4x that of 4K because 4K is exactly 4x the number of pixels of 1080p. Now this value will usually be much less given the magic of the codec to only give pointers to pixels that have already used that same pixel data.
It's only going to be higher than the same level of data on 4K over 1080p if you make the data denser per pixel or make other changes like adding higher quality audio, more channels, more languages, or even more video and supplemental files, all of which is possible since Sony is trying hard to market 4K.
So the reality is for any reasonable vendor you'll get files less 4K files less than 4x over 1080p for a given codec, which is itself pointless since 4K video files (which are different from 4K monitors) shouldn't even be a consideration until we have H.265 chips in our HW will further reduce file sizes by up to half which means the 4K files you eventually see on the iTunes Store won't be much more than the current 1080p files as to detract their intended market.
"Tuesday's rumor is not the first suggest Apple is building a larger-sized iPad."
It's really hard to take anything you write seriously when there are so many typos. Does no one proofread over there?
Nope; it's all about the useful posts in the threads. Heck, don't even bother reading the articles themselves, go straight to the forum.
Proofread.
Big deal. It would surprise me if they weren't. However there's a huge difference between a prototype and a shipping unit. Until this actualy ships this is a non-story.
Well on a rumor site it isn't a non-story. But it's certainly nothing for anybody to get excited about.
As things stand now, I would not buy a 13 inch iPad. I would rather buy a Mac air or even an iMac instead. If the iPad cost $800 you know a 13 inch iPad will cost 1200.
Everyone is so eager to predict what you think about a product until it's been unveiled. There might be something more to it that just a change in screen size.
Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).
If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).
If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
Agreed. I suspect the only people holding the iPad Mini closer than the iPad Air are children. (Edit: and probably the people like me whose eyes suck and they're trying to see what that tiny text says!
)
Um, people's arms are only so long. You don't hold things farther away from you just because they're a bit bigger. There's no math function for determining how far away you place a display based on its size. You place it depending on what it's designed for and handholding is the primary iPad design intent. There are limited arm positions that are comfortable, as well (people aren't going to be holding them at full extension).
If you're suggesting the larger iPad would be intended as a desktop display, then that defeats touch interaction if it's not a mostly flat/horizontal desk position (plenty data out there to show that traditional display positioning doesn't work for touch screens; my personal experience says the same).
The retina MacBook Pro screen is "only" 227 ppi and I don't see a lot of people complaining about that. But let's forget about the proximity from the eyes bit.
The iPad air resolution is already good enough for 95%+ of people at 264 ppi. Heck, a lot of people can't even see the difference between a retina and non-retia iOS device. The only situation where I really notice the pixels on my iPad 3 is when some 3D game shows highly contrasted polygons without anti-aliasing.And that could be fixed by hardware anti-aliasing.
But whatever, my original point was that there is no good reason to go over 326 ppi for a 12.9" iPad pro, as doing so would introduce a lot of unnecessary hassles for developers because it would make everything too small, including most importantly buttons and other touch targets, while only benefiting a very small portion of the population.
I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.
I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.
I wonder if Apple can go to a 16:10 aspect ratio @ 326ppi for a bigger iPad Pro.
If they were going to go bigger I'd think 264 ppi is sufficient, but since we're likely talking an entirely new UI akin to going from the iPhone to the iPad they could really chose anything that would still maintain Retina quality from a natural holding position.
The truth is in the codec and quality being utilized and TS's logic is sound. Remember that a video is just a series of images and sound placed into a container. Let's remove the container and sound and focus on a single frame of a video file.
Let's say that 1080p, which translates to 1920x1080. For a given level of data per pixel (read: the same info per pixel) the file shouldn't exceed more than 4x that of 4K because 4K is exactly 4x the number of pixels of 1080p. Now this value will usually be much less given the magic of the codec to only give pointers to pixels that have already used that same pixel data.
It's only going to be higher than the same level of data on 4K over 1080p if you make the data denser per pixel or make other changes like adding higher quality audio, more channels, more languages, or even more video and supplemental files, all of which is possible since Sony is trying hard to market 4K.
So the reality is for any reasonable vendor you'll get files less 4K files less than 4x over 1080p for a given codec, which is itself pointless since 4K video files (which are different from 4K monitors) shouldn't even be a consideration until we have H.265 chips in our HW will further reduce file sizes by up to half which means the 4K files you eventually see on the iTunes Store won't be much more than the current 1080p files as to detract their intended market.
In the near future we'll have cheaper, faster broadband connections with a higher data limit, and that will ease the transition to 4K, but at the moment the reality is 4K content is at 40-60GB. Sony did say they're hoping that future codecs will slash the file size in half, but that's still a 20-30GB file.
I do not believe that Sony is serving large files because they're idiots, Sony is using MPEG4 which is an efficient codec. The only way to decrease the size of the file is to reduce the quality of the image, or increase the load on the processor. The latter might also work better in the future with better chips tuned to chomp MPEGs.
Moreover, the MPEG4 codec is more than just a series of images with a sound file, the codec uses many technologies, such as frames. The P-Frame, a vector motion frame, makes for smaller MPEGs when elements in a footage moves in 2D space, but has no effect of zooming footage.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Retina display with a 2,048-by-1,536 pixel resolution, which by many standards is already a 2K panel
thats a Retina display.. no only the resolution on iPad its higher than the 2K (2048 x 1536 vs 1920 x 1080) but also has 264 ppi that makes it a 4K resolution or even better
Quote:
Originally Posted by rgroves
It would be nice if they give the iPhone an hd screen before jumping to 2K or 4K screens on the iPad
If you want a HD iPhone buy the iPhone 3gs or the first one
now you have something better a "retina".. the first iPhone resolution (480 x 320) was not a big deal but the 163 ppi was greater than almost all Full HD TV's 50 ppi that was released back in 2009
typical media tech reffered to Retina as market term but now every other electronics are using it inclunding HDTV's around 140 ppi
if Apple wouldn't made Retina for iPhone 4 the smartphones of today like that ceap plastic phablet Samsung Gallaxy S4 the specs on paper will be like this 1920 x 1080p - 74 ppi
I agree with this but I would go even further and question how Apple would introduce a larger tablet when the current 4:3 aspect ratio becomes less ideal at increasingly larger sizes and there is no simple upscale that would allow for an easy transition for developers, unlike with the iPad Mini's simple downscaling.
Good point, but it would make it soooo much easier for devs if they could use the same set of buttons/bitmaps and touch target and font sizes across all iOS devices.
Also, showing iPad (mini) apps on a 12.9" would make them look huge and clunky so this would only be a stopgap measure anyway, much less important than keeping consistency for developers.
The iPad resolution was not a direct multiple of the iPhone resolution and while the density changed, it got lower so touch targets getting a little bigger physically was not a problem requiring resizing of those elements.
How about 3072x2304 at a more reasonable 298 ppi? Non-retina versions of unoptimized iPad apps could be shown at 3x full screen while avoiding fractional scaling. Not ideal but exactly what Apple did at first for iPhone backward compatibility on iPads.
And the fact that iPhone apps on iPads didn't look good certainly helped accelerate the development of native iPad apps.
There is no reality that states "4K content is at 40-60GB." Content simply doesn't work that way. There are multiple factors that are making Sony's content that size, assuming the statement of a low end of 40GB and high end of 60GB are accurate.
You have to consider the codec (which you have), the codec profile utilized, the length of the video, as well as the audio file size, and other options and features that make up the contents in the container.
I would wager Sony is trying to offer the best possible visual (and perhaps audio) experience for those who have the money to buy their 4K HDTVs. That means you can expect the profile to be much higher than you would expect for Netflix, ITS, Amazon or YouTube for a given pixel's worth of data.
The only truth is that 4x as many pixels does not mean files will need to be 20-30x larger for a given duration and per-pixel quality.