Yea, would love it, if they put a IPS-display on Macbooks.
Bloomberg: iPad 3 in March with retina display, quad core chip
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Yea, would love it, if they put a IPS-display on Macbooks.
brain_stew
Member
It's a CPU core, so no. However, the first SOC based on it will also include PowerVR series 6 graphics which will provide a huge leap in graphics performance.
brain_stew
Member
They won't stay the same, they'll increase. With the launch of the ipad 3, they'll be able to position the ipad 2 as their budget offering, further reducing the barrier of entry by $100.
Bboy AJ
My dog was murdered by a 3.5mm audio port and I will not rest until the standard is dead
I love the higher density screen. But what people always forget to mention is the fusing of the glass and screen. It looks so beautiful.
PhoncipleBone
Banned
That makes a difference too. I have only had an iPhone 4, but after looking at my coworkers 3GS yesterday, I could see a HUGE difference. The screen seemed more recessed, and just the lock screen alone looked jarring from a normal distance. I never realized just how used to the high dpi screen I was until I was using one of the older ones for a minute or two.
GodfatherX
Member
Hopefully they let Ives do the majority of the event, he is the most has the most Jobs- like stage presence if anyone I've seen at Apple. The iPhone 4s conference was painful to watchI'm still not over this
It would be great if they had the event on February 24.
Yeah, I would love that too, but it probably won't happen since he's a design man, and the new iPad will be practically the same design.
Still, I really hope they have the announcement on Feb. 24th, and have it release in early March.
"Retina display" was effective because anyone(except Marty and James Sinclair) can look at that screen and see a massive difference. It was a huge advantage for Apple with the iPhone 4. Tech illiterates would take one look at that screen, and not knowing a pixel from a hole in the ground, realize the screen was better than anything else on display at the store.
Apple is going to apply that same advantage again, and discounting it or acting like it's not a big deal is bad logic.
Apple is going to apply that same advantage again, and discounting it or acting like it's not a big deal is bad logic.
Ken Masters
Banned
iPhone screen still looks the best for me compared to other smartphones, and just about everyones I've met feels the same way. With the iPad already the de facto tablet, the addition a retina display is just going to make things unfair for other tablet makers
Can't agree more, I really cannot use my old iPod 3G after so much use with my iPhone 4.
Even trying to read on my iPad 1 after reading on my iPhone 4 has been a pain, and I tend to keep reverting back to my iPhone.
brain_stew
Member
The hardware isn't underpowered, the software is just unoptimised.
I'll take your word for it, as I know little on all this stuff. It's why I wished Apple was going to do the 7" tablet. I really dig my 4S and Apple has their hooks in me for all the Apps I've bought
But the 10" tablets are just too big for how I would like to use them
I doubt it well ever happen, tbh. It would simply further segregate the market in a way which Jobs' didn't even want to do with the supposed iPhone 5.
sure, on a 3.5" phone screen, retina lets you keep smaller font sizes and still be able to read it. But on a larger tablet screen you don't get the benefit of retina as much - presumably you'd have larger font sizes as they are more comfortable to read (you'll compromise on a phone for portable access to information).
I don't need to zoom about in safari nearly as much on an iPad 1 compared to an iPod touch pre-retina. So there isn't a pressing need IMO for the iPad to go retina. Sure it'll be lovely though.
I just hope games are allowed to use iPad 1 res and the hardware will scale it neatly - does iPhone 4 already support the equivalent? That way for some games at least, the dev can choose whether they want retina graphics or more power reserved for polygons etc.
They can definitely do that, it's the main point of pixel doubling. Apps not updated for the new resolution scale nicely. The only thing that can be jarring is apps that use text mixed with other elements. You can get beautiful text sitting next to ugly graphic elements.
With the iPhone 4, people screamed bloody murder if the dev didn't support retina display. This on the other hand, will be an interesting transition, since 1024x768 is already pretty good for games at that screen size. I would say in the end, the market will decide. If developers get a flood of 1 star reviews for not supporting the new screen, they'll do it.
Marty Chinn
Member
Massive is the key problem here. I don't think they see a massive difference. Are you trying to say that this image is what people see?
It's not. Not even close. The screen is nicer, no doubt. Nobody denies that, but I don't think it's the massive impact that you make it out to be. It's more massive in the marketing than the reality of the situation. In fact going from 3GS to 4 isn't as jarring as using a 4 for awhile and then picking up a 3GS. I think it's something you get used to over time compared to it being the huge impact instantly. Let's not forget the screen being glued to the glass and the better colors also help make the screen look better and it's not just the increased in resolution. So overall it has many elements that does make it look nicer.
But let's get to reality here. Apple owners aren't special. You can't have it both ways where people who don't own Apple products can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p, and many who thought SD was HD because it was on an HDTV, or that upscalers are amazing. You can't have those people but suddenly Apple buyers are informed and see all the differences. Not at Apple's level of success. They are the same people and most of them won't notice, or won't care. Many will think, something looks better but can't put their finger on it and none of them will think it looks like that picture in the difference. So let's not try to say it's a "massive" difference to most people.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
lol, what are you even arguing?
Marty Chinn
Member
I'm arguing that people like you overstate the difference with pictures like that which don't represent a real world situation. Nobody sits there with the iPhone screen 1 mm from their eye.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
So what? What is your end goal in this bizarre conversation? If someone said "okay," would it matter?
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Marty, I think you're right in asserting that "most" people probably don't really care too much about the difference between the 3GS screen and the Retina display. But even the most technologically uninformed will notice the difference. Because its an obvious, noticeable difference. It probably doesn't even register in their brain as something they can articulate, but they absolutely will notice it.
The difference between the screens is not subtle in any sense of the word. Theres a big fat difference that even someone from the past who has never seen an LCD display could notice.
The difference between the screens is not subtle in any sense of the word. Theres a big fat difference that even someone from the past who has never seen an LCD display could notice.
Marty Chinn
Member
What was your end goal by posting a picture that didn't realistically represent the situation?
I think it's much more subtle going from 3GS->4 than it is to go from 4->3GS. Again, the bonded screen, the better colors and the resolution all add to the display looking better. So we can't simply say oh it was definitely the difference in resolution that makes it jump out. I don't even think it jumps out. Like you said, something registers that something about it looks nicer, but it's hard to articulate what that might be. If it was such a huge difference from the resolution, then it would look like the pictures being tossed around and people would obviously be able to point it out.
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
It does represent the situation though. The new screens display four times as much information as the old screens did. Its the single biggest upgrade the iPhone has ever got. Yes, even bigger than the upgrade to 3G.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Sure it does. There are 4 pixels for every 1 in the old screen. That is exactly what a tiny little block of text on the front page of the NYTimes looks like on iPhones.
It's hilarious how butthurt you are because you think the difference isn't as big as what others think. This isn't a real argument. It isn't a real thing to be all mad because some people value or notice some things that others don't. No minds will be changed, and nothing of actual consequence will happen by telling others "hey, it ain't that bad, guys" about a subjective topic in as many words and posts as possible. I feel like this is what people have been telling you for years now.
Marty Chinn
Member
But the screen doesn't look like that to anyone. Nobody would use a 3GS if it looked like what that picture implies. Why? Because nobody puts their eye in close to the screen to see that difference to make it look like that. 1080p has more than twice as many pixels as 720p and if you zoom in I'm sure you'd see a similar thing, but nobody is going to give two shits other than mostly the hardcore home theater enthusiasts when they sit in front of their TV and see two the two different resolutions. You can zoom in on anything to show a resolution difference. That doesn't mean it accurately reflects real world usage.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
Okay.
sixteen-bit
Member
Rumored specs sound delicious.
Why are you so focused on the zoomed in pics? That has nothing to do with my post.
I'm saying that the iPhone 4, on display next to the competition(especially at the time it launched), was a massive difference. And why are you even arguing about that word? Who gives a shit? It's a descriptive adjective. You always pick one stupid word and fixate on it.
You're going to be waiting a while then. The proposed resolution doubling (2048 x 1536) is not 300ppi ... it's 263.92. But it also doesn't need to be 300 - as that's not what retina means. The assumption is you aren't holding it as close - http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=34267907&postcount=339
Assuming the above resolution and holding it 24" away from you ... you'll actually be well above 'retina' in terms a arcseconds.
arctan( ( 1 / 264 ) / 24 ) = 32.55 arcsec
Disagree.
Certainly 'retina display' was a great marketing campaign, and I'm sure it helped sell some phones ... but I'd argue it sold more to then-current iPhone owners than being some huge selling advantage versus competitors in the general market.
If you note all the people in this thread saying what a huge difference it was, they were all coming from an earlier iPhone and its 480x320 screen. Of course when compared to that the difference is revelatory. However, there were plenty of higher resolution screens available from competitors prior to and at iPhone 4's launch. Were they as high? Obviously no, but the delta wasn't nearly as significant as it was for people coming from something like a previous iPhone. And while the iPhone 4's screen may have looked better sitting next to other high resolution phones of the time, the difference wasn't nearly as significant at real world distances as many would like to claim. Hell if you believe Apple's assertion that a 'retina' display requires 57 arcsec, then the original Motorola Droid is a retina display as long as you hold it out a sliver beyond 13.5" instead of 12".
So while it may be a nice marketing point, I think it's being oversold in terms of just how big of a differentiator it really is in peoples' purchase decisions. Don't get me wrong, it's a great feature ... but since the delta isn't all that much, I don't think people weigh it nearly as highly as some are arguing. If they did, Apple would be completely dominating phones ... but they aren't. Actually they've been losing marketshare.
Now moving to tablets though, I can see this as being a pretty big selling point. Doing the maths for my Transformer, I'm actually getting just above 57 arcsec ... but actually looking at the screen, there is certainly room for improvement. I suspect the out-of-my-ass usage of 24" for the viewing distance is either too far ... or Apple's contention of 57 arsec is actually a bit high as others have contended. It's probably a combination of both. Regardless the point is that even for current high resolution tablets, there's room to improve.
Moving forward some 1080p tablets have been announced, and doing the math I think that will likely be plenty for most people. Whether the proposed 2048 x 1536 (versus 1080p) yields a bigger difference than with phones depends on what distance people really use them, and whether the contention that beyond 57 arcsec has little utility is actually true. Regardless, let's say it would place Apple in a similar position as they were with Retina versus other high res phones. ie. looks better, but the delta isn't significant enough for most people to weigh it particularly high.
The key difference here is that iPad 3 may beat the competition to the market (I'd have to look up proposed release dates). Even if they don't though, the amount of competition is going to be dramatically less than it was versus phones ... and that's likely true for most or all of 2012. When you then couple that with the fact Apple is in a far better position with tablets than it was with phones (dramatically higher marketshare for 'full size' tablets) ... and the fact Apple has a far better library of tablet software versus Android (making it more likely Apple's marketshare won't erode or at least not at the same rate) ... I think this will prove to be a much more important differentiator than it was on phones.
I do it all the time
I completely agree with the comparison versus prior iPhones and similar resolution offerings by competitors. The people downplaying the difference are being ridiculous.
What I find equally ridiculous however are the people, either through unintentional or intentional omission, glossing over the fact that iPhone 4 had plenty of competitors with WVGA-FWVGA resolution. While retina may still be better, the delta between such phones and iPhone 4 is obviously not nearly as significant at real viewing distances. For many people it's simply not a highly weighted differentiator ... especially when talking about phones with similar sized screens.
As you move to larger screens though, the IQ difference does become more noticeable. But for people in the market for a larger screen, Apple doesn't offer a product in that segment so it becomes moot.
Anticitizen One
Banned
I hope iPad 4 has 3D without glasses
Dynamite Shikoku
Congratulations, you really deserve it!
Oh God no
D
Deleted member 22576
Unconfirmed Member
Yeah, the Droid1's screen was and is still one of the best screens I've seen on a phone. I think it's aspect ratio had a lot to do with it as well. I was always disappointed looking at other devices when I had the droid because the screens weren't as long/tall.
charlequin
Banned
Yeah, the difference between, say, the Droid and the iPhone 4 isn't really that huge; certainly the Droid is significantly closer to the iPhone 4 than it is the iPhone 3G.
Then again, in the tablet arena, the Asus Transformer Prime is 1280 x 800, a lot closer to iPad 2's 1024 x 768 than the rumored 2048 x 1536. (But then again again, ASUS apparently already announced a 1920 x 1200 tablet? So who knows.)
Yeah, as I eventually got to in my tl:dr post, I feel the market situation is substantially different than it was at iPhone 4's launch.
While 1080p will likely prove good enough for most people, Apple will have few competitors with it for quite a while. Moreover, their market position is notably better in the tablet sector than it was for phones. This time, I think 'retina display' has the potential to actually be the significant sales advantage/differentiator people were claiming iPhone 4's display provided.
Vyse The Legend
Member
I want to believe that it will have everything mentioned in the article -- quad-core, retina, etc. However, history tells me to be wary. Blogs and news sites swore that iPhone 5 was coming last Fall, to no avail.
Also, the new quad-core chips aren't suppose to go into production until Q2 2012, according to the last estimates. March is way too soon.
I'm sure the display will be improved, but that's it.
Also, the new quad-core chips aren't suppose to go into production until Q2 2012, according to the last estimates. March is way too soon.
I'm sure the display will be improved, but that's it.
A quad core cortex a9 has been in production since last year. Tegra 3.
FreeMufasa
Junior Member
I'm hoping iPad 3 will. 3DS has caught on so there's still hope for this year.
Vyse The Legend
Member
Yes, but that's not Apple's tech, and they won't use it in the iPad3.
I'm talking about the A6, which, according to CNET, isn't going into production until June 2012, the earliest.
That analyst report is based on the A6 being cortex a15 based (going by the 28nm process). They can still easily produce a quad core A5.
I'm amazed mostly by one thing: How quickly many Apple consumers will immediately migrate to the latest device.
Even considering a retina display, these specs wouldn't impress me enough to part with $699 and abandon an iPad 2 that's less than 2 years old (and still bests probably 90% of the devices available). Yes, these specs sound like the Omega of tablets, but similar to HDTVs, there's little actual return for the high cost of upgrading every 12-24 months.
Even considering a retina display, these specs wouldn't impress me enough to part with $699 and abandon an iPad 2 that's less than 2 years old (and still bests probably 90% of the devices available). Yes, these specs sound like the Omega of tablets, but similar to HDTVs, there's little actual return for the high cost of upgrading every 12-24 months.
Liu Kang Baking A Pie
Member
It did. It just has a different name.
You're right to be skeptical of Apple talk, though. Almost everyone just makes shit up.
- Status