Can't we just wait until the next iPad actually arrives and then discuss the specifications?
First out of the starting gate this Monday morning: iPad 2 speculation has gone into overdrive, with talk of a dual-core processor and a quadrupling of the 10.1in display's pixel count. That would take the tablet's screen resolution to a whopping 2048 x 1536, higher than a full HD TV. The rumour started with a piece on …
Um, it makes things easier to read because everything is dramatically clearer and reduces the need for anti-aliasing. Also, with this type of device - phones in particular - you tend to have the screen closer to your face than a monitor, which makes lower resolutions much more noticeable.
Whether or not the proposed resolution in the article is technically possible (at a reasonable cost of manufacture) for that sized screen is another matter altogether though!
Yes the practical use is that in a Android versus Apple wank off the iPad user will be able to have the bigger wank after frustratingly gasping numbers and specs at each other in a who's better contest, albeit short lived due to a bigger and better tablet from an Android-using vendor which will reverse the favoured and chosen one in the top-trump-spec-tout-wank-a-thon...
...for the iPhone 4. I was stunned when I first saw that 960x640 screen. Surely Apple should arrange things such that sizes scale nicely from Phone to Pad? A 1920x1280 would seem like a good size for the new iPad - and it would support HD video better than a 2048x1536 (this size is known as "2K" in my industry)?
They're just getting started on software. Launch page, data aggregation, a user addressable file system, much more printer control, a widget interface in addition to app back-grounding, significantly enhanced cloud integration, Exchange calendar support/meeting creation, enhanced security features, better app management, they have a LOT to do with software yet. You incorrectly assume they're married to the current UI, and much of what i just mentioned would even still work with the current one.
Yes, a 2048x1536 resolution, Oct-core CPU, 128GB RAM, 10.1" screen and powered by a unicorn tear and blood battery mixture.
With that out of the way I've got to wonder not only who makes this shit up but also why somewhat sensible people report them even as rumour. 2048x1536? Higher resolution than 'Full HD' TVs on a 10 inch screen, right? Even if it was made from the specs I put up above it'll still be an Apple controlled device with the artificial limits imposed by Stewpid Jobs and his ego. I've no doubt it'll be the best <superlative> ever when it's announced too. I mean look at the original, it's magical!
isn't particularly high definition, it looks ok from across the room, but sit 2-3 feet away room it and you'll soon see how low it is for large tvs. The rise of HD has actually lowered the resolution of computer monitors, because 720p/1080p screens are much cheaper due to their availability.
I have a 1080p display on my 15inch laptop and it's software that's the issue more than anything else, forcing things too small.
ie 1080p resolution, or if they insist on a 4:3 screen, 1920 x 1440 (which would allow for a full-size 1080p video and still some room for on-screen controls).
2048 x 1536 will result in up-scaling artifacts when playing HD video. On a media-consumption device, I'd have thought that 1080p video would be the main selling-point of improving the resolution.
To avoid a nasty scaling mess the resolution needs to be an integer multiplier of the existing iPad (as the iPhone 4 was 2x of the iPhone 3) therefore I think 2048x1536 is much more likely than a widescreen resolution (1920x1280) OR a non-integer scale of a 4:3 resolution (1920x1440).
Scaling was a concern going from very low res on 3.5" to full res on 10" however, most apps already look great on 10", so bumping the res more has little impact. Also, the majority of apps are only using bitmaps in either low end apps or in higher end ones for launch screens etc. Your desktop scales just about everything and you hardly notice. Scaling on an iPad to a higher resolution will produce artifacts, sure, but they'll be damned heard to see since the resolution at 10" is already sufficient to ignore pixel density.
...that increasingly these rumours and "leaks" are slipped out not by Apple, its suppliers or sellers, but by Apple's competitors?
Well, increasingly these rumours are more and more outlandish, more and more fanciful, and increasingly the real product fails to meet those imposible specs.
Which means that people who are hyped up for a few weeks of "It'll contain everything plus TWO kitchen sinks AND a butler" see the iNewRelease only having a kitchen sink and none of the other goodies and get disappointed - disappointment with Apple then leads them to look elsewhere for products which they would not have looked for had their expectations not been unrealistically hyped.
Heck, if I were trying to compete with Apple, it's a strategy I'd give serious consideration to as being the one way to sour people's view of Apple, causing them not to look closely at their products, and then sweep in with mine.
Large numbers of tablets with features virtually analogous to the iPad will be appearing this year and I expect they'll start turning up in the $200-300 range, nearly half what an iPad costs.
Given that, I wonder how Apple will justify the price of it's product. Is it going to produce a budget model or is it going to cram in stupidly high spec performance to keep it's margins up? If the latter, then I expect there could be some credence to the rumours, but then again I question the point of such high specs. I think I would be more interested to see an iPad with a high contrast mode like Pixel Qi or similar, since that would be of more practical benefit of jacking up the screen resolution.
"Large numbers of tablets with features virtually analogous to the iPad will be appearing this year and I expect they'll start turning up in the $200-300 range, nearly half what an iPad costs."
Interesting but wrong. The reason why there were no iPad competitors last year is that all the companies were under the impression that the iPad would cost $999. They were so shocked at the $499 price that NONE of the devices shown at CES last year were shipped within 6 months of the demo and those that were met the market with a resounding plop.
"Given that, I wonder how Apple will justify the price of it's product."
The price will be $499. That is reasonable for a device that ships with iOS on a large screen. The question really is how can the competition hit a lower price given the cost of production. Samsung with their Galaxy Tab required carrier subsidies to hit the price - and they make a lot of the components for the iPad.
I'm not sure why you think $499 is the minimum that a functional tablet should cost. An Archos 101 offers a 10" capactive touchscreen, wifi, multimedia, browsing etc. and costs nearly half the cost of an iPad. That's here right now and is just a herald of things to come. In the next couple of quarters there will be a flood of Android 3.0 devices at all price points (cheap and expensive) and I guarantee you some of them will be compelling and much cheaper an iPad.
I think he meant the new iPad 2 would be $499. That sounds eminently reasonable for a multi-core higher res device with an SD slot, more RAM, lighter weight, and more. Also, there's no reason the believe the 1st Gen will leave the market (the 3GS is still sold after all), and it could easily fall to $299 at this point (in fact, Jobs himself said on stage a year ago the iPad pricing was experimental, and if the market demanded, it was highly flexible). iFixit estimated less than a $250 build cost a year ago.
Well don't buy it on Amazon then. In the UK Dabs sells an 101 8Gb for £252, while Apple's 16Gb iPad retails from the Apple store for £439. In the US, NewEgg sells a 101 8Gb or $295, Apple's store sells a 16Gb iPad for $499.
Before you go harumphing that 8Gb != 16Gb, or that it's not exactly half, I never said it to compare like with like. What I said you could get a functional tablet costing nearly half and the Archose was the example I chose to illustrate what will happen over the course of this year. Functional and affordable tablets will continue to appear that significantly undercut the price of an iPad.
Jesus some people are so frigging sensitive.
Doubling the resolution doesn't seem very likely to me.
But, looking through my previous comments, I remembered that I commented the exact same thing before, when the iPhone 4 was rumoured to have a doubled resolution - and that turned out to be true.
I'm on the fence on this one.
Apple like to surprise the market. I'm not sure what I prefer - announcements *way* in advance (e.g. RIM Playbook) or Apple's shock tactics.
Parts suppliers could be in a game of one-upmanship - each claiming to have been given a contract to supply their component.
Those reporting these stories - remember, many will say Apple's devices are overpriced - however, in the volumes they sell, they still need to be affordable (even if only by 20% of the population).
ARM already sells IP for a processor it calls Cortex A5. It's a small in-order processor which (like its A9 contemporary) can be deployed in a 2-4 core SMP system and is binary compatible with all the bells and whistles of ARMv7 architecture. There's going to be a lot of inappropriate compiler flags set if we end up with these two conflicting names.
I was extremely skeptical, but it seems apple forgot to remove some of the new ipad's graphics from the iOS 4.3 beta. They are indeed double the resolution, which gives this rumour a whole lot more credence.
Besides the display they're going to need 4x the graphics power to run it at the same speed. And guess what? The rumoured new SGX chip has 2x the power. But it's rumoured to come in a dual-core variant, which exists, and would indeed give 4x the performance required. Drivers for this chip are present in the new beta too.
So I think the insane screen res and dual graphics cores are actually likely. Dual core cpu too? Dunno, but that's certainly feasible.
And to anyone wondering why such a crazy screen res: use an iphone 4 for a bit. The difference it makes is enormous. You no longer see pixels. Text is incredibly sharp and easy to read even at small sizes. You see a ton more detail in photos, games etc. Going back to a lower res screen feels like going back in time. I used a friend's ipad a while back - it looked really pixelated after an iphone.
I have two 2048x1536 monitors - they're 22" CRTs. The nearest equivalent TFT is a Dell U2711 at 2560x1440 costing 700 quid..
(Whenever people lambast me for keeping with an 'out of date' technology, I point out that 2x100 pound refurbished CRTs is a lot cheaper than close to 1.5K..)
How sensible is it to expect that a tablet with an extremely healthy profit margin is not only going to feature a hideously expensive very high pixel density panel, plus uprate the processor and graphics chipset to cope with it, and unnecessarily limit what software runs on the system.
It doesn't make sense - far more sensible to improve the display slightly, and run a faster graphics chip so that new applications become possible.
Granted, you're right, and probably they should be run at a lower resolution - either the max 'standard' 1600x1200 which is well under the fully resolved dot pitch, or 1920x1440 which is just a nudge over what's probably possible.
However, it looks fine (if slightly small at times) due to the analogue nature of CRT. TFT scalers are better than they used to be, but missing out the occasional pixel will tend to have a much more jarring effect.
It might be a different matter if I was doing colour critical media editing, but fortunately I'm not.
I believe these specs make sense if you look at what Apple has as its marketing strategy.
They always have to have something new and something "cool".
iOS is not very cool anymore, Android has already reached that level. There is no new software/interface invention easy to implement and missing from the competitors (like multi-touch, accelerometer, gyroscope...etc).
So they can only bump up the specs to remain stand out from the crowd.
- The quad-core Cortex-A9 processor with dual graphics cores would stand out from the Tegra2/OMAP4 offerings
- The retina display would also be unique in the 10" segment
- The camera and the SD slots are just simple damage management of the iPad1.
They would simply make the iPad1 cheaper (say $300-400 as a low-end iPad) and sell the iPad2 a bit more expensive ($700-1000) making it the high-end iPad.
They don't compete in the laptop space... but, a 2GB RAM 4 core ARM with some GPU oomph might actually be enough to run full OS X, iTunes and iPhoto included (maybe not iMovie), and basic functions. Os X is already compiled to run on ARM (has been for a long time inside Apple HQ, they admitted that with the Intel launch and then again at the iPhone launch), and we could actually see that with this CPU,. an 11" ultra-compact Apple "netbook" could some in around $500-600. That, or a heavily redesigned Mini around $350.
I wonder if "one more thing" could be an apple low end machine, or even just a docking clam for the iPad allowing it to access mroe storage and dual-boot Os X. A $300 add-on to make it a notebook, including full keyboard and that glorious track pad, that would be awesome.
What a ludicrous rumour - there's about as much chance of them doubling the iPad's resolution from its original specs as there is of them doubling the iPhones's resolution from its original specs. It's never going to happen.
The iPad is just a fad anyway. It's never going to sell.
And you know what - Apple hardware is overpriced!!! It's all hype, and hipsters with too much money. This needs to be said!
Isn't it always the same since the iPhone? Apple comes with something that sells great. All others try to copy what Apple did and make it bit cheaper, smaller, with more options and call it an "iWhatever"-killer. Then Apple comes with the next iteration, again besting everything on the market. Repeat.
So, yes. I think there is no doubt that the iPad 2 will come with a print-like resolution screen very much like the iPhone 4. The rather low-res, coarse screen is just the only thing that's still ugly about the iPad, especially since the iPhone screen looks so much better (I'm currently reading Iain Bank's "Surface Detail" on it. Lovely screen. It's the first time I actually prefer a serif font for reading on a screen, it just looks like print).
I agree. Why does Apple get lots of rumour articles when it's just vaporware, when actual releases of more popular mobile platforms don't get any article (e.g., every netbook release, or Nokia and Android phones).
"If you want to remotely control a desktop computer then it is very handy."
Not really, remote desktop is capable of scaling with different resolutions. There's no point keeping a very high resolution on a small display that you can't see anything on. (Does the Ipad actually support remote desktop?)
It's just numbers bragging. Consider how for years, the Iphones had a very low resolution compared to other phones, and no one seemed to cared about this, but as soon as the Iphone 4s had a higher resolution, suddenly it was a marketing point.
But anyhow, this Istale or whatever it's going to be called is all just vaporware at the moment. I might as well claim the existence of an AmigaSlate, with 8 core processor and 640000x512000 resolution and 16 billion colours, and then justify the hype by referring to all other tablets as "so called 'AmigaSlate Killers'"...
Since Apple once managed to double the Iphone resolution over a period of 3 years, from when it started off as a very low resolution, clearly Apple are now going to double the resolution with every release as the Ipad.
In fact, The Register should write a vaporware article on the "IpAD 10", claiming it's going to have a resolution of 524288 x 393216. Still won't beat the AmigaSlate though - but long term, Apple will be the winner. After enough generations, they'll announce the "Universe Display", which will have more pixels than atoms in the universe.
(And last time I looked, a fad is something that manages to sell something, but as a result of all the free advertising it gets from the media; and this doesn't mean it's going to be the market leader in mobile platforms - that trophy goes to Nokia for phones, and Windows for netbook/tablet sized devices.)
but too less is too less. Having more than 300 dpi (which is about print resolution) is surely nice to have and there's no real reason to be happy with less. But even higher resolutions makes not much sense then.
Is there really any doubt that an iPad 2 with about as much dpi as the iPhone 4 is a good thing?
Revisionist history. The iPhone had a 3.5" 320x480 160 DPI screen back in 2007 which was hugely beyond almost all other phones at the time.
Even the typical smartphone in 2007 (e.g., Blackberry 8800, Samsung Blackjack, etc.) had a ~2.4" 320x240 screen, i.e., the iPhone had TWICE the resolution and the same pixel density. And hardly anyone used smartphones (at least int he US) back then.
yeah but everyone knows that the "Amiga-Slate" can do real multi-tasking whereas the "IpAD 10" well just cant so they invent a new PR term that sound cool :D
and as for the "Universe Display" sure. that's ok If you like that in apple shade's of green/amber screen as that's all you get from the new and improved job's CEO clone V5.
( its speculated he's accident-prone and stuck his head out of his Reality distortion field http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reality_distortion_field just as the tech's were imprinting his memory core dump and he someone had some DRM cracked I Love Lucy episodes re-run's running at the time in the co-operative OS)
everyone else will be happily using the the Amiga-slate and its custom 'multi-verse Hold and Modify' HAP128 display with 4096+ qua-trillion colour display :D
you can see part of one of those other verses in the simulated pic here when you drag the Amiga-slate screen down, how cool is that :D (Steve did not like it one bit when he found out ) and no other OS does that yet and probably wont for another 30 years plus, and even then not quite right :D
Ooh and lest you forget Mark . the "Amiga-slate" can run "IpAD 10" emulation inside an Amiga-slate 'multi-verse" window at far better speed than the real "IpAD 10" hardware :D Ooh fun times.
id just like to point out to those that didn't know ... or have problems with their goggle fu that care to actually look before responding to posts.
a mobile 1920x1080 1080P TFT LCD was available as an option, as was a 1024x768 2.6-inch TFT LCD back in the day, alas products before their time ...
that's a Real 16:9 ratio video display not your 4:3 and oddball stuff you see PR innovators pushing on mobile today.
what do we care about back then you might say...., well funny enough while it's not 7" there is now a new 1080P LCD on the market at 4.8-inch
do you care a little more now !
Surely the reason they were able to double the res of the iphone is because it ran the same hardware as the ipad (and now similar resolution)? If they double the res and give it 4 times the graphics power won't the massive battery life be lost? And I dread to think how laptop hot this thing would run...
Whatever it is that's in the iPad 2, it will be really cool. And it will be a surprise. And when the company announces the product it will be manufactured. There will be a definite price, a definite order start date in the near future, and a definite ship date not too long after that.
Which is a complete departure from all those Windows tablets Steve Ballmer held up at CES 2010.
when is a quad not really a quad, when its an Ipad2 OC
the apple faithful can can a dual CPU and dual gfx cores a quad if they like in 2011/12
everyone else will be using things like the real Freescale quad A9/NEON 128bit SIMD with 4 real CPU's and a Mali T604 Gfx core
"Mali is designed to work with ARM’s latest CPU core, the Cortex-A15, which targets smartphones, tablets and even servers. Up to 16 2.5GHz cores can work together for these larger systems.
Mali T604 will be compatible with Microsoft’s DirectX 11 and with OpenCL 1.1, both programming frameworks for parallel processing over multiple cores."
“The i.MX 6 series is Freescale’s first ARM-based multicore SoC and first Cortex-A9 model. The processor advances the i.MX family with dual-stream 1080p video playback at 60 frames per second (fps), 3D video playback at 50Mbps, desktop-quality gaming, augmented reality applications, and novel content creation capabilities, says Freescale.
The SoC is also touted for being one of the first applications processors to offer hardware support for the open source VP8 codec.
VP8 drives the related WebM (MKV) open container format, both of which are supported in the most recent Android 2.3 release….”
“the SoC is claimed to enable 1080p video (single stream) with only 350mW consumption. As a result, the i.MX 6 series can deliver up to 24 hours of HD video playback and 30-plus days of device standby time, claims the company.”
with these quad core Freescale SOC at slightly more than $20 a pop in 2011
“Freescale tells me the single core chip will be available to device makers for under $10, while the quad core will cost more than $20, with the dual core model falling somewhere in between. Sure, that means the quad-core chip will cost more than twice as much as the single core chip, but we’re still not talking about a lot of money here..."
hell people might even buy and use the slightly oddball NON standard NEON SIMD Marvell ARMADA XP chip features 4 separate cores rather than the apple SOC if it's not got real quad core CPU's included as standard and actually working even in 2011/12.
remember kid's its not a single core universe any more even if the main stream sites dont want to tell you about the Freescale quad core coming this year as they Need to sell those dual cores everyone and his dog are producing right now.
come Christmas 2011 you know your going to buy that real Freescale ARM quad device at the better price and lower power usage at full load and forget all about those single core ipaid A4
(side note, the original ARM inc did in fact produce a real "A4" product back in the day BTW, so apple already used an infringing name, i guess ARM let them off or included that naming right in their licence with them)
a 4X resolution bump is not necessary. Going from the low res 3.5" screen to 10" was a huge difference, and a stretched app had easy to see distortion and pixelation. However, stretching from current resolutions at 10" to higher resolution on the same 10" will not be as noticeable. Further, many apps are coded using rendered graphics, and fewer and fewer using bitmap in the first place, and resolution independence has been added for buttons and other items on screen, making adapting to variable resolutions much easier for devs (this was not the case pre-ipad/retina).
going to such extremes of resolution is also unnecessary given the common viewing distance of a pad vs a phone. 300ppi approx is needed to get a phone to have "invisible" pixels, but 240-260 would probably suffice on a tablet. So long as they hit 1080 vertical resolution, I think we'll be satisfied, maybe 1200v to account for wider screen viewing on the not-quire 16:9 screen... Much more and the GPU requirements would exceed that of what the iPhone could support in a given form factor, and that would mean radically different chips for the pad and phone (which Apple does not want). A quad core with voltage control and core power down I can see, but taking out the Marvel for a full GPU that can handle 1500v resolution in 3D, the hear requirements likely won't support it, many desktop chips can't handle that at 30fps...
People are fixating on the wrong aspect of this rumour. It really doesn't matter how "good" the monitor is if you don't have the CPU or the GPU to take advantage of it. It's far better to get that sorted out BEFORE you decide to go to a larger (better detail) monitor. Being able to actually decode 1080p is a necessary pre-requisite here.
It would also be nice to have decoding for something other than low profile h264. Although we are more likely to see Dragons flying over Parliment before Apple offers something that flexible/useful.
We're talking about 'retinal displays' that is that these devices will be used closer to the face and yes you can see the difference.
The interesting thing is how Apple has taken on the graphics... Its not part of the processor but still separate. Core Duos and a good graphics chip, right? (Macbook air...)
Looking at the graphics capabilities... its very possible for the machine to render 300 dpi graphics provided that the screen is capable of handling it.
Larger than 1080p means that you will still have a boundary around your display to add controls without impacting the displayed image and still keep things in proper perspective.
Thumbs up if this rumor was true.
ohh yeah "retinal displays"
you OC mean the apple PR innovators version of this tech being fed to you,
not the real thing as in the real kind of "retinal displays" coming in contact soon with your eyeball's :D
New Contact Lenses With LED Displays is Must-See TV, Literally
"We recently profiled a new crop of Augmented Reality video games designed for your mobile phone.
How adorably 2010. The whole concept of mobile AR is already behind the curve, the real future will be in Augmented Vision—a virtual layer on reality, no smart phone necessary.
And "AV" may have just taken one giant step closer to feasibility. A research team at the University of Washington has designed a contact lens that has the ability to project LED displays directly into the irises....."
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020