View Full Version : iPad Do you think the next iPad will have a "retina display"?


jibril
06-09-2010, 04:17 PM
I imagine making that high a DPI for iPhone will cut the costs of such a display in the near future, even though we'll likely have to wait about a year for an update to the iPad.

Hope it has an SD card reader then too. Problem is, no OS is based on vector graphics, so on a computer screen bitmapped based graphics appear too small, should be using something like postscript like the printers do.

I always wondered why monitors didn't move toward this instead of plateauing in the resolution department.

kjk
06-09-2010, 04:31 PM
I imagine making that high a DPI for iPhone will cut the costs of such a display in the near future, even though we'll likely have to wait about a year for an update to the iPad.


I think Apple may update the iPad this year again, when they upgrade the OS to 4. I'm guessing front facing camera. Retina display would be great-I'm really interested to see the new touchpanel-glass bonding feature.

scottjl
06-09-2010, 04:35 PM
pretty much a no-brainer that it'll have the updated display. with releasing the iphone 4 apple has antiquated the excellent display on the ipad in 2 months. the biggest question is will their supplier be able to produce the screens in quantity? i'd expect a forward facing camera as well, facetalk and all.

internal SD reader. i wouldn't hold my breath on this one. apple has had several years to include a microSD slot on the iphone and chose not to. they seem set with their fixed storage strategy and letting "the cloud" handle the rest of your immediate storage needs. the external SD reader will probably continue to be an option. wouldn't hope for a standard USB port either.

scottjl
06-09-2010, 04:35 PM
I think Apple may update the iPad this year again, when they upgrade the OS to 4. I'm guessing front facing camera. Retina display would be great-I'm really interested to see the new touchpanel-glass bonding feature.

nah. apple has never released and updated a product in the same calendar year. they'll let the existing ipad sell like hotcakes for the holiday season, then release the upgrade next spring making everyone buy again.

stustaff
06-09-2010, 04:50 PM
The iPad will not get the same screen as the new iPhone for at least 2 years IMO, it would make it such a crazy resolution that not only would it be unnecessary it would be too expensive.

dorino
06-09-2010, 04:58 PM
I doubt that. High resolution, small displays are pretty affordable. I'm sure you can expect a next-generation screen on the second generation iPad.

scottjl
06-09-2010, 05:10 PM
they have the technology, it's simply a matter of scaling at this point. if apple released a new ipad next year without a resolution as good as the iphone 4 most of the tech sector would point and laugh. i expect a resolution at least as good as the iphone 4's, if not better, by next spring.

volwrath
06-09-2010, 05:16 PM
Lets be honest. Apple is not innovating with its retina display. They are playing catch up to Windows Mobile and Android who have had 840x480 phones (as opposed to iPhones 480x320) for quite a while. Their DPI is a little higher than Androids now, but in my mind its not that big of a deal on a 3.5" screen.

I think the next ipad will be 1280x1024 or 1600x1200.

stustaff
06-09-2010, 05:18 PM
they have the technology, it's simply a matter of scaling at this point. if apple released a new ipad next year without a resolution as good as the iphone 4 most of the tech sector would point and laugh. i expect a resolution at least as good as the iphone 4's, if not better, by next spring.

The same resolution would mane NO sense on a larger screen not to that level. a Bigger TV doesn't once you get to a point add more pixels they just get bigger. The iPad is already higher resolution than the new iPhone.

PLUS with that many pixels you would need a faster processor then due to that a larger battery, it wont happen next year or this, next years small update will be a camera pointing forwards only for video con and larger memory for storage.

dorino
06-09-2010, 05:25 PM
You wouldn't need a faster processor, or a larger battery. It could use it, though... :)
The iPad has a higher resolution in one sense of the word, and a lower in another. Low dpi.

I, however, am expecting that the iPad will already be far surpassed by the competition come generation 2.

scottjl
06-09-2010, 05:25 PM
apparently you're not aware of the innovation that went into that new screen. not only is it a higher pixel count, but the LCD is bonded directly on the glass. the glass has been engineered to be 30x stronger than plastic, reportedly stronger "than sapphire" (the gemstone). the IPS provides a better viewing angle than any other phone available today and 800:1 contrast ratio, again the best out there today. the phone is made of a composite steel piece that provides frame structure as well as integrated antennas for phone, wifi and bluetooth.

there are plenty of new technologies that apple developed that went into making this latest phone. things that other hardware manufacturers will now try and copy like they did when the original iphone was released.

as i've said, if it wasn't for apple releasing the iphone 4 years ago we'd still be sitting here with Windows Mobile (a horror that should have never been released on earth), PalmOS smartphones and blackberry's click-wheel.

stustaff, the a5 is already in test stages. it should easily handle next year's screens. and we don't know what else apple has in development with their semiconductor business. they've been acquiring experts in the field right and left.

stustaff
06-09-2010, 05:29 PM
You wouldn't need a faster processor, or a larger battery. It could use it, though... :)
The iPad has a higher resolution in one sense of the word, and a lower in another. Low dpi.

I, however, am expecting that the iPad will already be far surpassed by the competition come generation 2.

Youwould need a faster processor! If you wanted it to ru. At the same speed, redrawing what twice as many pixels needs more grunt!

Scott, im very aware and I expect a new screen with the new technology but not to the same resolution as the new iPhone again it's unnecessary expensive ands would require a better processor and battery. Next year will be an upgrade and then the year after a true 2nd gen iPad.

scottjl
06-09-2010, 05:36 PM
have you seen the breakdowns of the ipad? plenty of room for a 3rd battery pack if apple wanted to. along with a separate gpu if they wanted to add that.

unnecessarily expensive? like putting it on a phone? 15 years ago we were happy with a segmented LCD display on a phone for $400. why do we need 326dpi now? lol.

dorino
06-09-2010, 05:37 PM
Good points, Stu.

Though, Apple does have a habit of using unnecessarily expensive things in their products... Or atleast making them unnecessarily expensive. Great products, still.
I'm agreeing with Scott. It's really inevitable that the screen improves. Apple really wants it to. It'll probably be one of their main selling points.

stustaff
06-09-2010, 05:43 PM
Good points, Stu.

Though, Apple does have a habit of using unnecessarily expensive things in their products... Or atleast making them unnecessarily expensive. Great products, still.
I'm agreeing with Scott. It's really inevitable that the screen improves. Apple really wants it to. It'll probably be one of their main selling points.

Oh deffo screen will improve but not to hone 4 like resolution it's just too much for what will be a minor update version.

The phone is getting it to stay ahead of the competition that's why it can be justified, at the price and profit of an iPad they won't be throwing the extra battery improved processor and retina display onto it for the same price! And they won't be increasing the price.

dorino
06-09-2010, 05:51 PM
The iPad, like the iPhone, will also need to stay ahead of the competition, though. Who knows what the competition will be?

stustaff
06-09-2010, 06:23 PM
The iPad, like the iPhone, will also need to stay ahead of the competition, though. Who knows what the competition will be?

Agreed but I feel cost battery and weight will be more of a selling point than a new display, the iPad already gets great feedback on it's screen.

dorino
06-09-2010, 06:27 PM
Right now, sure. The screen though, is one of the most easily improved aspects of the device, and therefore, likely to be something the competition will take hold of. Apple will need to, too.

WillAdams
06-09-2010, 08:54 PM
jbril, a bit of a history lesson:

Mac OS X is based on OpenStep which was based on NeXTstep for which Display PostScript was written (mostly by NeXT employees).

It doesn't have it now because Adobe refused to license it as promised and together w/ Microsoft whined about re-writing all their apps. So we got Carbon. Curious why that's Yellow Box? It's 'cause when Bill Gates was asked if he'd develop for NeXTstep his answer was, ``Develop for it? I'll piss on it.''

William

(who loathes the compromises Carbon apps have forced on the NeXT UI)

wallcraft
06-09-2010, 09:22 PM
The next iPad will likely have a higher resolution, but the "retina" display came about because an exact doubling of resolution makes upscaling images very easy and because Apple could still get a good price on the screens. Then marketing came along with the retina sales pitch. Note that I am not saying that Apple does not care about screens way more than the typical device maker, just that quality isn't the only factor.

I assume the iPad has broken Apple's fixation (in software) on one screen resolution, so there is no need to do an exact doubling again. Apple will likely use the highest resolution that is economic and practical for a ~10" screen. Part of the "practical" will be whether the graphics controller can process that many pixels.

nikkie
06-10-2010, 12:37 AM
I would be shocked if the next iPad had a retina display - at that screen size, the resolution would be slightly more than 2560x1600. While it would look fantastic, I agree with others who have mentioned that that is an unreasonably high burden on a processor attempting to last 12 hours on a battery charge and keep the heat to a minimum.

In addition, doing games at that resolution is not even done by the commercial desktop market, so most would have to scale down. And no one sells video that plays at that resolution; not to mention that selling and distributing movies of that size would require better bandwidth than hardly any people have available to provide a good experience for the user.

In short, it doesn't make good business sense yet to sell an iPad with a resolution of 2560x1600. While I don't doubt that it will be higher than the current resolution, it's not going to sport a retina display for at least a few more years.

dorino
06-10-2010, 01:57 PM
Okay, thanks for clarifying what a "retina" display would entitle, nikkie.

I don't think it will be that high either.

petermillard
06-10-2010, 03:14 PM
I think an iPad Mini (6" screen) with a retina display would be an interesting idea, if they could get it to cost out OK. A smaller, lighter-weight device but with a high-res screen might be just the ticket for folks who find the iPad is too big or heavy for everyday use e.g. commuting.

Pete

charleski
06-10-2010, 04:51 PM
No chance at all.

The manufacturing issues involved scale with surface area, and the iPad has 9 times the surface area of the new iPhone.

3" LCD screens with ~166dpi have been with us for 8 years, but 10" panels at that resolution are still unobtainable (or rare as hen's teeth - I haven't seen one). So the manufacturers can't produce screens with even half the resolution of the new iPhone at this size.

scottjl
06-10-2010, 05:07 PM
do you have detailed knowledge of the manufacturing process involved in the new iphone display?

charleski
06-10-2010, 05:40 PM
do you have detailed knowledge of the manufacturing process involved in the new iphone display?

That really is a rather facetious comment.

If anything, I've downplayed the degree to which quality control issues make large, truly high-res displays extremely expensive.

Kolenka
06-10-2010, 05:46 PM
Hope it has an SD card reader then too. Problem is, no OS is based on vector graphics, so on a computer screen bitmapped based graphics appear too small, should be using something like postscript like the printers do.

I always wondered why monitors didn't move toward this instead of plateauing in the resolution department.

OS X (and by extension iOS) uses a form of Display Postscript with some PDF-style improvements they dub "Display PDF". There has been a lot of work towards resolution independence in the core OS over the last 3-4 years to allow the UI to scale to meet the dimensions of the screen, rather than the pixel size.

In the case of the iPhone, it also helps that they simply doubled the pixel count in both dimensions, makes it easier in the short term.

The problem with using Display Postscript for monitors is that monitors are still pixel based. Why not offload the work of figuring out the pixels to the GPU/CPU/OS which is already doing that work? It's completely possible to move away from pixels/etc without having to introduce a new type of monitor (and the tech that drives displays isn't moving away from using pixels anytime soon).

The same resolution would mane NO sense on a larger screen not to that level. a Bigger TV doesn't once you get to a point add more pixels they just get bigger. The iPad is already higher resolution than the new iPhone.

It's about the DPI/PPI.

iPhone 3GS - ~160PPI
iPhone 4 - ~320PPI
iPad - ~130PPI

Right now, the iPad has the least dense screen, which matters for things like text. The PPI for the iPad is lower than most eBook readers, and it does show.

jbril, a bit of a history lesson:

Mac OS X is based on OpenStep which was based on NeXTstep for which Display PostScript was written (mostly by NeXT employees).

It doesn't have it now because Adobe refused to license it as promised and together w/ Microsoft whined about re-writing all their apps. So we got Carbon. Curious why that's Yellow Box? It's 'cause when Bill Gates was asked if he'd develop for NeXTstep his answer was, ``Develop for it? I'll piss on it.''

William


Will, nice to see someone try to give a history lesson, but this is woefully off the mark. OS X does have a variation of Display Postscript (see above), it's how the Quartz engine runs.

And the real history lesson is that Cocoa was the Yellow Box. Blue Box was the proposed emulation layer. When OS X became official (post-Rhapsody), Yellow Box became Cocoa, Carbon was added, and Blue Box became Classic.

kjk
06-10-2010, 05:55 PM
I guess the other question is, does the iPad get used at the same reading distance as the iPhone...maybe the iPad can get by with a lower PPI. I am interested in the new glass fusing technology coming to the next iPad-from what I've heard, the new process makes the graphics look like they are on the surface of the display.

WillAdams
06-10-2010, 07:17 PM
While Quartz can be described as ``Display PDF'', architecturally, it's a bit different and programs w/ DPS dependencies are not a recompile for Mac OSX. Losing DPS meant a lot of things were lost such as nxhosting, direct display of .eps graphics and .ps files (Mac OS X has to distill them to .pdfs) &c.

Thanks for catching the yellow box error --- always get those reversed.

charleski
06-10-2010, 07:17 PM
I guess the other question is, does the iPad get used at the same reading distance as the iPhone
I think 1 foot is a reasonable standard for close viewing. If I hold a book comfortably my elbow is flexed about 75 and the book is around 13" away.

If the text is too small then people will move the device closer, but I'm short-sighted (and, I suspect, slightly presbyopic) and with glasses on my minimum focal distance is around 9". Focusing on an object that close requires a clear conscious effort.

Kolenka
06-10-2010, 07:33 PM
While Quartz can be described as ``Display PDF'', architecturally, it's a bit different and programs w/ DPS dependencies are not a recompile for Mac OSX. Losing DPS meant a lot of things were lost such as nxhosting, direct display of .eps graphics and .ps files (Mac OS X has to distill them to .pdfs) &c.

Thanks for catching the yellow box error --- always get those reversed.

So for the purposes of specific implementation, yes, they are different. I've never delved that deep into the graphics engine, really, so I'll take your word as to what is missing/changed.

But for the purposes that jibril brought up, OS X and iOS already have a big chunk of the architecture required to meet the concept of moving towards a less pixel-centric rendering system. Where it falls flat right now is that all rendering that an app does is still done in terms of pixels, rather than physical dimensions and aspect ratio. That's not going to be an easy fix without deprecating large swaths of APIs and introducing new ones. We can hope it will happen at some point though.

scottjl
06-10-2010, 07:51 PM
delete me

dorino
06-11-2010, 12:22 PM
Ooo, quality control was brought up recently... I'm laughing at the thought of someone buying a huge DPI 10in screen and then having a bunch of dead pixels scattered throughout... Joy!

murraypaul
06-11-2010, 12:26 PM
Ooo, quality control was brought up recently... I'm laughing at the thought of someone buying a huge DPI 10in screen and then having a bunch of dead pixels scattered throughout... Joy!

I've got a dead pixel on my iPad screen, which kind of bugs me.

stustaff
06-11-2010, 02:22 PM
I've got a dead pixel on my iPad screen, which kind of bugs me.

Warranty?

kjk
06-11-2010, 02:32 PM
I've got a dead pixel on my iPad screen, which kind of bugs me.

Apple is pretty good about replacing iPods/iPhones with dead pixels-might be worth taking it in and asking!

charleski
06-11-2010, 03:38 PM
Apple is pretty good about replacing iPods/iPhones with dead pixels-might be worth taking it in and asking!

Absolutely! That's defective and needs a replacement (and shouldn't have got past QA).

scottjl
06-11-2010, 03:43 PM
at least it can't hurt to take it into an apple store and have them look it over, if there is one nearby. they used to have some policy about 5 pixels in a row or 6 scattered on the screen, no idea what it is these days.

with the retina display, i doubt you'd even notice a single dead pixel, and if you had a streak that was noticeable they'd have little argument against replacing it.

murraypaul
06-11-2010, 06:07 PM
Warranty?

The risk I took buying a US iPad and bringing it back to the UK.

scottjl
06-11-2010, 06:09 PM
hmm. making another trip out? you have 1yr from date of purchase on hardware issues. or send it back here to family/friend.

stustaff
06-11-2010, 06:17 PM
The risk I took buying a US iPad and bringing it back to the UK.

Not really seeing as apple warranty is worldwide,you bought it from apple they are one company it's not complicated like when you buy from say Sony in US and they are a different company technically to Sony Europe.!

I asked before sending for mine from IS if it would be covered here and they said yes! BUTnot until the iPad is released in the UK as they wouldn't be trained up on what to do or have it in the system.

But basically your covered! You bought it from Apple and you can take it back to Apple.

kjk
06-11-2010, 06:19 PM
Not really seeing as apple warranty is worldwide,you bought it from apple they are one company it's not complicated like when you buy from say Sony in US and they are a different company technically to Sony Europe.!

I asked before sending for mine from IS if it would be covered here and they said yes! BUTnot until the iPad is released in the UK as they wouldn't be trained up on what to do or have it in the system.

But basically your covered! You bought it from Apple and you can take it back to Apple.

Yes, shouldn't be an issue. Plus, all iPads are still under warranty :)

HarryT
06-12-2010, 05:24 AM
Virtually all manufacturers have a specification of what constitutes a faulty screen when it comes to "dead" or "hot" pixels. A single such pixel would rarely - if ever - be regarded as a fault.

murraypaul
06-12-2010, 05:40 PM
Virtually all manufacturers have a specification of what constitutes a faulty screen when it comes to "dead" or "hot" pixels. A single such pixel would rarely - if ever - be regarded as a fault.

That is the thought I had, it is certainly annoying for me, but I don't think I would expect them to replace it.

scottjl
06-12-2010, 07:18 PM
you'll never know unless you ask..

Trubu
06-13-2010, 01:50 AM
you'll never know unless you ask..

It's definitely worth looking into. My sister-in-law propped up my wife's iPad on top of this old steamer trunk we have, and it tipped over and slid down the metal corner of the trunk, picking up a nasty scratch on the screen in the process. I didn't expect Apple to replace it, but I took it into the Genius Bar to see what it would cost to get it repaired. I explained the whole thing, the Genius took one look at it and immediately said they would replace it because it shouldn't have scratched.

YMMV, but I would at least check at your local store.

rwizard
06-13-2010, 11:10 AM
I Think that Apple will at least bring the resolution up to the point of being able to display 1080p. As long as the device could keep up with a 1080p video by the time the next iPad is put out I would be shocked if they did not. They would definitely want that feather in their cap.