Rumour. iPad 3 more expensive then iPad 2.
Source:-
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/02/27...e-hike-over-ipad-2-shipments-to-u-s-en-route/
There is no Retina Display for any of these devices.
$580 would be idiotic. Apple can afford to cut it's margins so it can stay the dominant player in the tablet market. No, I won't believe Apple is this stupid. The new entry level iPad will stay @ $499.
I was gonna say, they've been holding to pricepoints pretty well lately.
There is no Retina Display for any of these devices.
They make them in ChinaWhy would it be in Chinese though?
The Chinese don't get Apple products first and there is ZERO reason why it would be of use for international shipping from China to the US.
I think this is dud
I love seeing ya'll scared. Dance! Dance!
$579 is an odd price point and not something Apple would do.
Except 2x the resolution doesn't mean 2x the RAM footprint.I am expecting the latter.
Higher resolution, and virtually no other major improvements.
Also, minor RAM bump to 1GB. This has to happen, by the laws of computer science. In order to store graphic assets at 2X size, you need 2X memory or face a performance stall.
No chance the 16 wifi is more than $500.
okWell you know how apple is with money, they think that people will buy IPad 3 at $579 and the people will gobble it up like nothing
Except that it is a 'retina display'.Stop with that. No one here is interested in that talk. It's a super high resolution for a device that small. Retina or not. It's just semantics.
wahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhwill you people stfu about retina already
Mr. Refrigerator is starting to be annoying.
...you haven't even seen this thing yetYou may find my view annoying, but it points to the beginning of a decline for Apple since Jobs' death. When he unveiled the iPad 2 and talked about the Retina Display - the specificity in its DPI, the fact that the screen was raised to the glass surface - the passion he spoke with identified its importance to him. Apple likely spent massive R&D dollars to advance the technology and under Jobs' watch they pulled it off.
With this iteration it appears to me that they are just becoming lazy. Were Jobs alive there is no way this wouldn't be a Retina Display with superior resolution, clarity and performance. Now they're throwing the term around lazily where it doesn't apply, and Cook is fine to languidly abuse Jobs' past innovations. This is nothing more but just another screen that will be indistinguishable from the litany of other tablets on the market.
The only thing that's clear is you don't understand what 'Retina Display' means.You may find my view annoying, but it points to the beginning of a decline for Apple since Jobs' death. When he unveiled the iPad 2 and talked about the Retina Display - the specificity in its DPI, the fact that the screen was raised to the glass surface - the passion he spoke with identified its importance to him. Apple likely spent massive R&D dollars to advance the technology and under Jobs' watch they pulled it off.
With this iteration it appears to me that they are just becoming lazy. Were Jobs alive there is no way this wouldn't be a Retina Display with superior resolution, clarity and performance. Now they're throwing the term around lazily where it doesn't apply, and Cook is fine to languidly abuse Jobs' past innovations. This is nothing more but just another screen that will be indistinguishable from the litany of other tablets on the market.
You may find my view annoying, but it points to the beginning of a decline for Apple since Jobs' death. When he unveiled the iPad 2 and talked about the Retina Display - the specificity in its DPI, the fact that the screen was raised to the glass surface - the passion he spoke with identified its importance to him. Apple likely spent massive R&D dollars to advance the technology and under Jobs' watch they pulled it off.
With this iteration it appears to me that they are just becoming lazy. Were Jobs alive there is no way this wouldn't be a Retina Display with superior resolution, clarity and performance. Now they're throwing the term around lazily where it doesn't apply, and Cook is fine to languidly abuse Jobs' past innovations. This is nothing more but just another screen that will be indistinguishable from the litany of other tablets on the market.
If the upgrade is significant other than a higher resolution display I'll probably bite at a higher price. If I could get the 32gb version too I would be there day -1.
You may find my view annoying, but it points to the beginning of a decline for Apple since Jobs' death. When he unveiled the iPad 2 and talked about the Retina Display - the specificity in its DPI, the fact that the screen was raised to the glass surface - the passion he spoke with identified its importance to him. Apple likely spent massive R&D dollars to advance the technology and under Jobs' watch they pulled it off.
With this iteration it appears to me that they are just becoming lazy. Were Jobs alive there is no way this wouldn't be a Retina Display with superior resolution, clarity and performance. Now they're throwing the term around lazily where it doesn't apply, and Cook is fine to languidly abuse Jobs' past innovations. This is nothing more but just another screen that will be indistinguishable from the litany of other tablets on the market.
Is there an actual technical definition to the term "retina display". I'm an outside observer, but I had thought that that term was just apple talk for the high pixel density display on the iphone 4s.Stop with that. No one here is interested in that talk. It's a super high resolution for a device that small. Retina or not. It's just semantics.
It is apple talk, but does have an actual technical definition (essentially a minimum spec).Is there an actual technical definition to the term "retina display". I'm an outside observer, but I had thought that that term was just apple talk for the high pixel density display on the iphone 4s.
Retina = the human eye doesn't see the actual pixels.
You almost assurdely will not see the pixels on iPad 3 so it's retina. 'Fridge over here is just being a troll.
Thanks. I have been wondering about this since I first saw the thread title.It is apple talk, but does have an actual technical definition (essentially a minimum spec).
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=35501626&postcount=1779
Yes, but it interesting that they have laid out their own standard. I agree though that the distinction is fairly arbitrary. The screen on the 2 is already fantastic IMO. Any increase in pixel density at this point will just be icing on the cake.You almost assuredly will be able to see the pixels on the iPad 3 if you hold it close enough.
Retina display is a marketing term by apple and means whatever they say it does.
Yes it's a marketing term, but it does have an actual meaning.You almost assuredly will be able to see the pixels on the iPad 3 if you hold it close enough.
Retina display is a marketing term by apple and means whatever they say it does.
You may find my view annoying, but it points to the beginning of a decline for Apple since Jobs' death.
You almost assuredly will be able to see the pixels on the iPad 3 if you hold it close enough.
Retina display is a marketing term by apple and means whatever they say it does.
I'll still be upgrading form my iPad 1 no matter what the price. :|Those increased prices pretty much guarantee that I'm not upgrading my 2 to the 3.
I will, however, upgrade from the 2 to the, uh, next one?