iPad 3 2048x1536 resolution!!!

[AQ_OC]

That is one confused bit of rationalizing and even tasteless talking about Jobs not living long enough to look a full page content.

I never cared what they called it, but now I think should call in Retina just so you can have a hissy fit about how they can't do that.

Grow up. I'm not having a hissy fit about anything. And Job's wasn't right about everything.

 

[wonderfield]

Where do you draw the line? The new ASUS prime TF700 and Acer iconia tab a700 with 1920x1200 has a dpi of 230 dpi.

These are good innovations. The iPad 3's reported pixel density is another good innovation in the tablet space.

If you define the resolution increase innovation as past the resolving power of the human eye, there still isn't a clear line.

It is when the typical viewing distance for these products is well-defined.

Alright, where do you draw the line for resolution increase as a form of innovation (I already cut out all the work for you with the data above)? If one can consider resolution increase innovation, at what point of production is it consider innovating and what is the scope of the innovation?

I already answered this: when such things have not been previously demonstrated by other products in the same product space. An increase of 30 pixels per inch in a tablet is an innovation, just as an increase in 140 pixels per inch on a PC monitor is an innovation and just as an increase in the refresh rate on a PC monitor from 60 Hz to 120 Hz is an innovation.

These are all innovations. Some larger than others; some not as large. You disagree with this on what basis?

I just get really irate from people holding Apple in such high esteem for credit of others, for the masses of apple fans seem to lack critical thinking while eating up Apple marketing.

Apple has not done any marketing for the iPad 3 and its display as it's an unannounced product. How then could I be "eating up Apple marketing" for a product that, if you were to ask Apple, does not exist? Does this make sense to you?

 

[gwu168]

Apple has not done any marketing for the iPad 3 and its display as it's an unannounced product. How then could I be "eating up Apple marketing" for a product that, if you were to ask Apple, does not exist? Does this make sense to you?

I guess I was referring mostly to other marketing claims from apple that the masses tend to eat up. Jobs claimed the ipad 2 as the first dual core tablet (clearly wrong). The whole retina display is purely marketing and it wasn't as huge of a leap as many would like to claim it was (60 dpi jump from the nexus one). Whenever it seems that Apple adds new features to iOS that already existed on other devices, apple fans tend classify the new features as innovating...

Since you consider increase in dpi in itself innovation and acknowledge "innovation" of others beside Apple, then you're analysis is consistent and not one sided.

 

[heatlesssun]

I have seen numerous people complaining about the pixel density of the iPad, which is about the same as the MBA 11.6.

There are two factors that occur to me:

1: A MBA is running a desktop OS targetted low density display, so elements are actually smaller on an 11.6" MBA, so people don't really want smaller elements for the most part, which tends to be the consequence of higher DPI displays on desktop OS.

2: People tend use iPads differently than laptops, more reading at closer distance.

The Samsung Series 7 Slate has the same screen size and resolution of the MBA 11 and used very much like an iPad and while the S7S has its issues I've never heard of an S7S user complain of pixelation.

 

[Snowdog]

The Samsung Series 7 Slate has the same screen size and resolution of the MBA 11 and used very much like an iPad and while the S7S has its issues I've never heard of an S7S user complain of pixelation.

It's also running a desktop OS and people are kind of trained to expect it there.

Just because people see pixels anywhere, doesn't mean they will complain or even have an issue with it.

I can see pixels on my desktop and I don't complain about it, I would rather have that than deal with shrinking interface elements or broken scaling in most applications.

But that you actually don't see pixels on iPad density tablets, indicates below average vision. If that is the case then this stuff is irrelevant to you and it kind of limits the value of your opinion on this, to people with similarly limited vision.

But most people with just normal vision should easily be able to see pixels at that density.

By the end of this year I bet all flagship tablets (iOS/Android and Win8) will be shipping with >200 DPI screens, banishing pixels for most of the rest of us. It is a nice step that doesn't really make sense to complain about.

 

[UnknownSouljer]

I just want to make this one statement. I've been following this thread although not interacting until now.

There will be no shrinking interface elements or broken scaling in any applications on the iPad 3. The precise reason for the chosen resolution (2048x1536) is that it is exactly double the horizontal and vertical resolution of both the first gen and second gen iPad. This will mean that all scaling is simply 4x the original resolution meaning no additional programming from any third party will be necessary in order for it to be properly rendered/scaled on the iPad.

When the original iPad came out there was a problem with having non-native iPad aps and dealing with scaling from iPhone/Touch apps on the iPad. This is due to the fact that the iPhone/Touch do not share a resolution that scales linearly with the iPad. The iPad at this point is 2 years old and has plenty of native applications, this then will be a non-issue on the upcoming model, that is to say if the resolution increase is true.

The Picture shown a page or so back of the iPad 3GS next to the iPhone 4 really said it best. Despite the massive increase in resolution, no iPhone app failed to render correctly and none of the UI elements appeared to be physically smaller.

 

[Verge]

Apple has been a major driver in high resolution displays. Because these display companies are quite conservative, and won't build something unless they know there is a market. Apple is a market unto itself, so they can push new designs forward without marketing studies etc...

Several manufacturers making > 1080p monitors and display devices for years. Apple didn't invent this.

 

[Snowdog]

Several manufacturers making > 1080p monitors and display devices for years. Apple didn't invent this.

I like how you left out my examples, so I will re-iterate:

2004: Apple/LG introduce 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

The rest of the LCD industry does nothing for three years, and in 2007 Samsung finally managed to copy the layout.

2009: Apple/LG introduce 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

LCD panel industy again does nothing until Samsung got around to again copying the LG/Apple layout 2 years later.


Now I would like to see your examples of monitors in the last decade that are beyond 3 MegaPixels and didn't originate from the Apple/LG partnership. The only ones I have seen are super expensive niche products for medical industries.

Every consumer desktop monitor over 3 Megapixels for a Decade originated from the LG/Apple design partnership.

 

[jbrukardt]

I like how you left out my examples, so I will re-iterate:

2004: Apple/LG introduce 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

The rest of the LCD industry does nothing for three years, and in 2007 Samsung finally managed to copy the layout.

2009: Apple/LG introduce 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

LCD panel industy again does nothing until Samsung got around to again copying the LG/Apple layout 2 years later.


Now I would like to see your examples of monitors in the last decade that are beyond 3 MegaPixels and didn't originate from the Apple/LG partnership. The only ones I have seen are super expensive niche products for medical industries.

Every consumer desktop monitor over 3 Megapixels for a Decade originated from the LG/Apple design partnership.

errr, did you magically forget the Dell 3007 that came out in 2005? And every other dell 30 inch display since?

 

[refraxion]

The 3007 uses the same panel does it not? (As LG, I could be wrong).

 

[Snowdog]

errr, did you magically forget the Dell 3007 that came out in 2005? And every other dell 30 inch display since?

It was 2006, and it was using LG panel with an updated version of the original Apple/LG design from 2004. Which was exactly my point. I did not intend to list every design that included the panel AFTER it was introduced. It was who first introduced it that mattered.

My point was that Apple/LG partnership drove very high resolution monitor design, all the new high resolutions originated in that partnership.

After LG could build more than enough to supply Apple, they sold the panels to others like Dell and HP, and Samsung in 2007 copied the layout.

But there are no very high resolution( 3MP+) consumer monitor layouts that did not originate from the Apple/LG partnership.

Since 2004 the only new layout in (3MP+) consumer monitors (27" 2560x1440) was again an Apple/LG design and again Apple had a period of total exclusivity, follow by selling the panels to other makes like Dell, and eventually Samsung again copied the layout.

I predict the next first will be an iMac with a 4K screen (3840x2160).

 

[SomeoneElse]

This stupidity about this 4:3 aspect ratio (which is slowly fading away) being "innovative" is truly annoying. A bump in resolution is not innovate its taking something an enhancing it nothing NEW at all, its like adding a bigger eraser to a pencil......

So if that is innovative then isn't this?

-In October 2011, Toshiba has announced 2560x1600 pixels on an 6.1-inch LCD panel, suitable for use in a tablet computer,[22] especially for Chinese character display.

Or are you fanboys playing by a double standard?

 

[TerraPhantm]

This stupidity about this 4:3 aspect ratio (which is slowly fading away) being "innovative" is truly annoying. A bump in resolution is not innovate its taking something an enhancing it nothing NEW at all, its like adding a bigger eraser to a pencil......

So if that is innovative then isn't this?

-In October 2011, Toshiba has announced 2560x1600 pixels on an 6.1-inch LCD panel, suitable for use in a tablet computer,[22] especially for Chinese character display.

Or are you fanboys playing by a double standard?

I didn't read this entire thread, but I personally wouldn't say Apple was innovative by bumping the display resolution. It's their marketing of high-res displays that's innovative. Before the iPhone 4, most people didn't give 2 shits about ppi. Now with the "Retina Display", every phone is pushing 300+ ppi, and people are wanting those kind of details in other monitors. Because of the iPhone 4 (and soon the iPad 2) we might finally start seeing >200ppi desktop monitors.

Apple also got people to pay attention to IPS vs TN displays. Most people never heard of the term "IPS" until Apple started using it to market the quality of its iPad and mac displays. And now IPS displays are increasing in popularity again.

If those things remained unknown to the general consumer, IPS displays may've become a TV-only commodity, and high-res displays probably would've have existed outside of specialized (and expensive) uses.

 

[Snowdog]

-In October 2011, Toshiba has announced 2560x1600 pixels on an 6.1-inch LCD panel, suitable for use in a tablet computer,[22] especially for Chinese character display.

When is it shipping?

We are talking about products, not research projects. There are tons of cool research projects, but the real hurdle is getting the tech into consumer hands. I don't get very excited until I believe they are going to actually deliver something.

Sony showed a very technically interesting Crystal LED TV at CES. Do I care? No, because it will most likely never Ship. But I am quite excited by Samsung/LG OLED TVs that should ship this year.

Technically you might argue Crystal LED is more innovative, but if it never ships, it doesn't matter.

 

[heatlesssun]

Technically you might argue Crystal LED is more innovative, but if it never ships, it doesn't matter.

Innovation isn't necessarily tied to a shipping or popular product. If all innovation had to be tied to a shipping or popular thing there would never be any innovation.

 

[Verge]

I like how you left out my examples, so I will re-iterate

NEC, Sony, Barco, Electrohome, even SGI i believe.



Use your spiffy macbook and google. Apple unfortunately didn't invent the high end simulator/production market like you would love to believe.

 

[Snowdog]

NEC, Sony, Barco, Electrohome, even SGI i believe.

Use your spiffy macbook and google. Apple unfortunately didn't invent the high end simulator/production market like you would love to believe.

I have yet to own any Apple products and don't believe I said anything about Apple inventing any high end market. I have have been saying they were a big driver in the high resolution consumer LCD market.

And again you seem to be choosing to ignore inconvenient parts of my post.

Now I would like to see your examples of monitors in the last decade that are beyond 3 MegaPixels and didn't originate from the Apple/LG partnership. The only ones I have seen are super expensive niche products for medical industries.

Every consumer desktop monitor over 3 Megapixels for a Decade originated from the LG/Apple design partnership. "

I already acknowledged there were some high end niche monitors, but it is Apple that helped LG produced commercially viable High Resolution LCDs for regular consumers.

Every consumer monitor above 2.5Megapixels that I have seen originates back to an LG/Apple design. We have Apples push to thank for the 2560x1600 and 2560x1440 monitors we can buy today. It should be simple to invalidate this theory by show one simple example of a high resolution consumer monitor with a different origin.

You still haven't done this. In fact you have shown a single example of any monitor, you just listed some companies that are known to produce high end niche products when I already acknowledged those and make it clear that isn't what I was talking about.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Apple has been a major driver in high resolution displays. Because these display companies are quite conservative, and won't build something unless they know there is a market. Apple is a market unto itself, so they can push new designs forward without marketing studies etc...

You are so full of crap that you need an ennima.... LG was more of the driving force than apple was.....If you want to really say what the driving force was it was PC graphics cards that were able to push more and more pixels

The actual fact of the matter is that we have had high resolution PC displays for YEARS before Apple even thought about making a pad type of devices. Heck even an original radeon can drive a 2048 by1536 display even the rage 128 could do 1900*1200 and can trace it's roots way back to 1995

1080p has been a hinderance as it has actually stagnated display resolution increases in the consumer market place....

 

[Terpfen]

You are so full of crap that you need an ennima.... LG was more of the driving force than apple was…..

Yes, LG's line of 200+ DPI displays is world-famous and… oh, wait.

 

[gwu168]

I like how you left out my examples, so I will re-iterate:

2004: Apple/LG introduce 30" 2560x1600 monitor.

The rest of the LCD industry does nothing for three years, and in 2007 Samsung finally managed to copy the layout.

2009: Apple/LG introduce 27" 2560x1440 monitor.

LCD panel industy again does nothing until Samsung got around to again copying the LG/Apple layout 2 years later.


Now I would like to see your examples of monitors in the last decade that are beyond 3 MegaPixels and didn't originate from the Apple/LG partnership. The only ones I have seen are super expensive niche products for medical industries.

Every consumer desktop monitor over 3 Megapixels for a Decade originated from the LG/Apple design partnership.

Going 2560x1600 to 2560x1440 is hardly a push from Apple. Way before the introducing of the Apple 27", many other OEM were moving to 16:9 aspect ratio for their 19-27" range of monitors before Apple. Its only natural for display maker like LG to follow the trend and build a 16:9 27".

Guess what, Apple has been getting the newest Intel CPUs a month or two ahead of everyone else. Oh, look Apple is bring innovation to Intel CPU. All the other OEM are just copying Apple now by using Intel

I predict the next first will be an iMac with a 4K screen (3840x2160).

Too late. IBM already has already made the T220 and T221 22.2" LCD panels with 3840x2400 in 2000.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yes, LG's line of 200+ DPI displays is world-famous and… oh, wait.

When it comes to the iPad Apple fans love to talk about innovation in terms of sales. Fascinating.

 

[Terpfen]

When it comes to the iPad Apple fans love to talk about innovation in terms of sales. Fascinating.

Not only is this just plain wrong, but it's entirely irrelevant to the post you quoted.

 

[heatlesssun]

Yes, LG's line of 200+ DPI displays is world-famous and… oh, wait.

When it comes to the iPad Apple fans love to talk about innovation in terms of sales. Fascinating.

Not only is this just plain wrong, but it's entirely irrelevant to the post you quoted.

If you say so.

 

[xSystemFailurex]

Just had to lol at this thread... Why does it always have to be a discussion between who got what "first"? Unix had virtual desktops probably before I was even born (I'm 29), and Apple intros them only a couple years ago as a new innovative feature only they could concieve. Apple is a corporation. Sometimes they tell lies for the sake of marketing. This does not make them any different than any other corporation, ever. If you think they lie more often than others, fine, but don't flatter yourselves by insisting Apple's (supposedly inferior) products only sell because they're such adept liars.

More on-topic, the iPad 3 is either the first consumer level tablet with 2048x1536 res with the express purpose of high PPI, or it's not. Conflating the issue is trolltastic, IMO.

 

[TeeJayHoward]

Too late. IBM already has already made the T220 and T221 22.2" LCD panels with 3840x2400 in 2000.

Sadly, those displays are crap for day-to-day use. Nice if you're a radiologist, but not so much for those of us who game.

I, for one, support the higher resolution. I think it's a bit silly that a tablet will have a higher pixel count than my desktop display, but it is definitely moving us in the right direction. To those of you who claim that it will help with text, please let me ask you:

Do you have issues reading text on a 1920x1200, 24" screen? That's 94PPI. How about Apple's 2560x1440 27" display? That's 108PPI. The iPad 2 has a screen resolution of 1024x768 on a 9.7" screen. That's 132PPI. Amazing how "horrible" it can be to read text on something that has better pixel density than your desktop monitor.

I'd actually like to pick one up and see if it can't be used for another monitor. There are some areas where I'd love to have the resolution, but could care less about screen size.

 

[evilsofa]

There are already several apps to turn an iPad 1 or 2 into a secondary monitor. Some of them do it over WiFi, some of them do it through USB. Since the iPad 3 would have four times the resolution, I wonder if they would still be able to do it over WiFi.

 

[TeeJayHoward]

There are already several apps to turn an iPad 1 or 2 into a secondary monitor. Some of them do it over WiFi, some of them do it through USB. Since the iPad 3 would have four times the resolution, I wonder if they would still be able to do it over WiFi.

It'd be really nice if there were a display port/thunderbolt/whatever connection built in, or even a dongle that uses the existing connector. If nothing else, I can always use remote desktop/VNC/etc, and pray that 802.11n is enough.

 

[shurcooL]

I don't think you'd want to use the native resolution of iPad 3 at 1:1 for VNC purposes. Things would get too small.

Too late. IBM already has already made the T220 and T221 22.2" LCD panels with 3840x2400 in 2000.

There's a big difference between a consumer product that is relatively affordable and makes its way to a lot of people's hands vs. an exorbitantly expensive ($10k+) prototype technology that only some pros can make use of.

Apple is not so much an inventor of technology, rather they're a company that's exceedingly good at pushing better/newer technology (and software) down to consumer level.

In the end, it's pretty useless to argue over who did what first. Instead, argue about who made what popular/affordable. But arguing on the internet is pretty useless anyway.

 

[Terpfen]

If you say so.

Where do you get an iPad sales argument from a post that rebuts the notion that LG is somehow responsible for the conception and creation of pixel-dense tablet displays? That's why your reply is irrelevant: it has nothing to do with what you quoted.

 

[CEpeep]

I don't think you'd want to use the native resolution of iPad 3 at 1:1 for VNC purposes. Things would get too small.

Don't be so sure. Apple's been adding HiDPI to MacOS for months now, and it will almost certainly be a big part of Mountain Lion. If they use it on the desktop, I don't see why it wouldn't be possible over a remote session. Should work ok over an LTE 4G connection...

 

[heatlesssun]

Where do you get an iPad sales argument from a post that rebuts the notion that LG is somehow responsible for the conception and creation of pixel-dense tablet displays? That's why your reply is irrelevant: it has nothing to do with what you quoted.

My point is that a lot of Apple fans particularly when it comes to the iPad equate innovation with sales numbers and popularity. You made the comment about the LG technology not being well known.

If I took it wrong my bad.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

I don't think you'd want to use the native resolution of iPad 3 at 1:1 for VNC purposes. Things would get too small.


There's a big difference between a consumer product that is relatively affordable and makes its way to a lot of people's hands vs. an exorbitantly expensive ($10k+) prototype technology that only some pros can make use of.

Apple is not so much an inventor of technology, rather they're a company that's exceedingly good at pushing better/newer technology (and software) down to consumer level.

In the end, it's pretty useless to argue over who did what first. Instead, argue about who made what popular/affordable. But arguing on the internet is pretty useless anyway.

negative, apple is extremely good at marketing and pushing over priced electronics down to the consumer level and why is this? so they can make as much profit on as little substance as they can.....and they have succeded in getting people to believe that apple = status symbol..

 

[Terpfen]

My point is that a lot of Apple fans particularly when it comes to the iPad equate innovation with sales numbers and popularity. You made the comment about the LG technology not being well known.

If I took it wrong my bad.

Yes, you did take it wrong. My comment had nothing to do with LG being known or unknown. (And LG is hardly unknown, making your misreading of my post even more befuddling to me.)

You somehow took a comment about LG's lack of pixel dense tablet displays or any major push on their part to bring high DPI displays to all tablets as iPad sales commentary when it's simply a rebuttal to the poster who tried to give credit to the push for pixel density on mobile devices to LG.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

Yes, you did take it wrong. My comment had nothing to do with LG being known or unknown. (And LG is hardly unknown, making your misreading of my post even more befuddling to me.)

You somehow took a comment about LG's lack of pixel dense tablet displays or any major push on their part to bring high DPI displays to all tablets as iPad sales commentary when it's simply a rebuttal to the poster who tried to give credit to the push for pixel density on mobile devices to LG.

LG phones were pushing 480*800 back when apple was stuck on 320*480 (3gs) in 2009 that was 3.0" screen and that equates to a ppi of approximately 311... vs 165ppi for the 3gs..... Nice try though

 

[SomeoneElse]

Not only is this just plain wrong, but it's entirely irrelevant to the post you quoted.

What he is saying is that the fact that you are arguing about products that apple has to purchase from other manufacturers in order to implement into their products. Simple they did not make it and its not innovative. As i have always said the most successful part of Apple as a company is their Marketing. I would hire their marketing department in a heartbeat, they could sell water to fish.

 

[gwu168]

It is official that the iPad 3 is going to sport a higher resolution display.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/28/apple-ipad-event-confirmed-for-march-7th-in-san-francisco/

You can see on the official invitation the text for "Calendar" is much clearer.

 

[Snowdog]

What he is saying is that the fact that you are arguing about products that apple has to purchase from other manufacturers in order to implement into their products. Simple they did not make it and its not innovative. As i have always said the most successful part of Apple as a company is their Marketing. I would hire their marketing department in a heartbeat, they could sell water to fish.

They are not just assembling off the shelf components and marketing them, other than standard commodity bits like Ram/Flash/resistors etc.

Apple leads the industry in industrial design. For iPad, they design their own SoCs and through partnership with LG, they specify the screen designs they want. They also write their own OS and have better integration than the rest of the industry, because they design the SoC/Screen/OS to all work together.

It is very naive to think it is mainly marketing.

 

[fury]

It is official that the iPad 3 is going to sport a higher resolution display.

http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/28/apple-ipad-event-confirmed-for-march-7th-in-san-francisco/

You can see on the official invitation the text for "Calendar" is much clearer.

While I agree that it's almost certainly going to have a higher res display, that picture isn't necessarily of a live screen or representative of what it'd really look like. Usually they mock up that sort of stuff or spruce it up in Photoshop to make it look nice, get rid of all sorts of things like moire effect, unwanted reflections, etc.

 

[wonderfield]

I think the "we have something you really have to see" is a pretty dead giveaway, even if the quality of the 'display' shown is not.

 

[fury]

That's true. It is way more forthcoming than Apple has typically been in the past. I recall the original iPad invite was simply "Come see our latest creation"