5 ms·

Highly unlikely unless it's double screens. 2048x1536 on a 10" display is going to be extremely expensive. Doubt it such a display exists now.

by jim_h 16y ago

watmough 16y ago
I think the art speaks for itself! What about the iPhone4? The screen is incredible! The current iPad badly needs an upgrade to high resolution, since as other posters have noticed, the pixelation is often quite noticeable.
flyosity 16y ago
Most people couldn't imagine the iPhone 4's retina display either, but Apple did it. I used to doubt Apple's engineering capabilities, but not anymore. I wouldn't put anything past them. The display that the iPhone 4 has didn't exist till it launched, so I figure this is no different.
- kenjackson 16y ago
  It's not just their engineering, but their scale. Buying 1 or 1,000 or even 100,000 of a cutting edge component can be expensive. But when you can put in guarantees on 1M+ of an item, you can seriously drive down prices. With the iPod thie is one reason why companies like Archos, iRiver, and even MS couldn't compete with Apple. Apple got preferred pricing based on volume that no one else could touch. If the iPad has that resolution I guarantee 10M units shipped in 2011, and that's probably conservative. No other tablet can come out and confidentally even think they could ship half that number.
  - philwelch 16y ago
    The same is true of flash memory. During the heyday of the iPod, Apple was the world's largest purchaser of flash memory, and would pre-order a year's worth of production, at significant discount.
  - flyosity 16y ago
    It's the cycle that kills Apple's competitors in the consumer market: 1) Apple sells millions of a brand new device, 2) this allows Apple to order millions of components, 3) cheap components drive down Apple's costs, 4) Apple can then lower the product's price but still retain a high margin, 5) Apple sells millions more because the feature & price one-two punch is too much to overcome.
    - code_duck 16y ago
      This shows why being first to the market with a good product can seal your advantage for years. Assuming it's not too early.
- bryanlarsen 16y ago
  Most people didn't have enough imagination, then. The Nokia N770 had a 800x480 pixel screen in 2005. It was more surprising to me that the original iPhone launched at such a low resolution and took so long to upgrade.
  - xal 16y ago
    what was the DPI?
    - adolph 16y ago
      800 × 480 resolution, 4.13 in diagonal, widescreen From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet Display size: 3.54" × 2.12" (9cm × 5.4cm) = 225.9 PPI, 0.1124mm dot pitch, 51029 PPI² From: http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
    - cubicle67 16y ago
      this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#Nokia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_densi... says the device has a 4.1" screen, with a dpi of 225 for comparison, here's the dpi of some other devices 2010 iPhone/iPod 326 2010 Sony Ericsson X1 312 2007 Toshiba Portege G900 313 2010 Samsung Jet s8003 300 2010 HTC Touch Diamond 2 292 2010 Droid X 228 2010 Sony Vaio Z128 168 2007 iPhone 163 2010 PSP Go 145 2010 11" MacBook Air 135 2010 iPad 132 2008 Nintendo DSi 110
Anon84 16y ago
If you consider that the iPhone 4 has 960x640 on a 3.5" screen, maybe it's not that unlikely...
- protomyth 16y ago
  I have serious doubts, but that would put the iPad2 at 264 ppi (pixels per inch) compared to the iPhone 4's 326 ppi.
  - flyosity 16y ago
    Which would mean the PPI is lower than the "retina display" minimum that Steve Jobs talked about when the iPhone 4 debuted. I wonder if they'll still call it a retina display?
    - aaronbrethorst 16y ago
      Of course he would! It's a killer marketing term :) Apple's marketing copy on the term specifically says: "the Retina display’s pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels." It isn't tied to a specific PPI number. And besides, depending on how good your eyesight is, the iPhone 4 'Retina display' moniker can be bogus, anyway (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/re...)
    - ceejayoz 16y ago
      That retina display threshold would be dependent on how far the device is commonly held from the eyes. In my experience, iPad users tend to put them in their laps whereas iPhone users tend to hold them closer.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]
    - dilap 16y ago
      Probably. The resolution at which you can't distinguish individual pixels depends on your distance from the screen, so they could spin it by saying you use the iPad a bit further back from your face than a phone. (If they even bother to spin it.) Edit: Whoa, a popular point to make -- I should reload before commenting :)
pohl 16y ago
I would be surprised too, but then I'd have to explain the double-sized iBooks images discussed in the article. I'm drawing a blank. Can you come up with a hypothesis?
- ceejayoz 16y ago
  If I were Steve Jobs, I'd be getting my engineers to slip stuff like this in to drive the rumour sites into a nutty frenzy. Imagine the fun if there'd been @3x images.
nlogn 16y ago
I would be concerned less with expense and more with things like how much battery life you can pull off when you have to support the monster gpu such a high res screen would require. When developing for the iPad and iPhone 4, I've noticed it is actually pretty easy to run into fillrate limitations. I would be very impressed if they could pull it off, though, but I doubt it will happen in the next model.

Highly unlikely unless it's double screens. 2048x1536 on a 10" display is going to be extremely expensive. Doubt it such a display exists now.

by jim_h 16y ago

Highly unlikely unless it's double screens. 2048x1536 on a 10" display is going to be extremely expensive. Doubt it such a display exists now.

watmough 16y ago

I think the art speaks for itself! What about the iPhone4? The screen is incredible! The current iPad badly needs an upgrade to high resolution, since as other posters have noticed, the pixelation is often quite noticeable.

flyosity 16y ago

Most people couldn't imagine the iPhone 4's retina display either, but Apple did it. I used to doubt Apple's engineering capabilities, but not anymore. I wouldn't put anything past them. The display that the iPhone 4 has didn't exist till it launched, so I figure this is no different.

kenjackson 16y ago
It's not just their engineering, but their scale. Buying 1 or 1,000 or even 100,000 of a cutting edge component can be expensive. But when you can put in guarantees on 1M+ of an item, you can seriously drive down prices. With the iPod thie is one reason why companies like Archos, iRiver, and even MS couldn't compete with Apple. Apple got preferred pricing based on volume that no one else could touch. If the iPad has that resolution I guarantee 10M units shipped in 2011, and that's probably conservative. No other tablet can come out and confidentally even think they could ship half that number.
- philwelch 16y ago
  The same is true of flash memory. During the heyday of the iPod, Apple was the world's largest purchaser of flash memory, and would pre-order a year's worth of production, at significant discount.
- flyosity 16y ago
  It's the cycle that kills Apple's competitors in the consumer market: 1) Apple sells millions of a brand new device, 2) this allows Apple to order millions of components, 3) cheap components drive down Apple's costs, 4) Apple can then lower the product's price but still retain a high margin, 5) Apple sells millions more because the feature & price one-two punch is too much to overcome.
  - code_duck 16y ago
    This shows why being first to the market with a good product can seal your advantage for years. Assuming it's not too early.
bryanlarsen 16y ago
Most people didn't have enough imagination, then. The Nokia N770 had a 800x480 pixel screen in 2005. It was more surprising to me that the original iPhone launched at such a low resolution and took so long to upgrade.
- xal 16y ago
  what was the DPI?
  - adolph 16y ago
    800 × 480 resolution, 4.13 in diagonal, widescreen From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nokia_770_Internet_Tablet Display size: 3.54" × 2.12" (9cm × 5.4cm) = 225.9 PPI, 0.1124mm dot pitch, 51029 PPI² From: http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
  - cubicle67 16y ago
    this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#Nokia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_densi... says the device has a 4.1" screen, with a dpi of 225 for comparison, here's the dpi of some other devices 2010 iPhone/iPod 326 2010 Sony Ericsson X1 312 2007 Toshiba Portege G900 313 2010 Samsung Jet s8003 300 2010 HTC Touch Diamond 2 292 2010 Droid X 228 2010 Sony Vaio Z128 168 2007 iPhone 163 2010 PSP Go 145 2010 11" MacBook Air 135 2010 iPad 132 2008 Nintendo DSi 110

Anon84 16y ago

If you consider that the iPhone 4 has 960x640 on a 3.5" screen, maybe it's not that unlikely...

protomyth 16y ago
I have serious doubts, but that would put the iPad2 at 264 ppi (pixels per inch) compared to the iPhone 4's 326 ppi.
- flyosity 16y ago
  Which would mean the PPI is lower than the "retina display" minimum that Steve Jobs talked about when the iPhone 4 debuted. I wonder if they'll still call it a retina display?
  - aaronbrethorst 16y ago
    Of course he would! It's a killer marketing term :) Apple's marketing copy on the term specifically says: "the Retina display’s pixel density is so high, your eye is unable to distinguish individual pixels." It isn't tied to a specific PPI number. And besides, depending on how good your eyesight is, the iPhone 4 'Retina display' moniker can be bogus, anyway (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/ http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/re...)
  - ceejayoz 16y ago
    That retina display threshold would be dependent on how far the device is commonly held from the eyes. In my experience, iPad users tend to put them in their laps whereas iPhone users tend to hold them closer.
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - dilap 16y ago
    Probably. The resolution at which you can't distinguish individual pixels depends on your distance from the screen, so they could spin it by saying you use the iPad a bit further back from your face than a phone. (If they even bother to spin it.) Edit: Whoa, a popular point to make -- I should reload before commenting :)

pohl 16y ago

I would be surprised too, but then I'd have to explain the double-sized iBooks images discussed in the article. I'm drawing a blank. Can you come up with a hypothesis?

ceejayoz 16y ago
If I were Steve Jobs, I'd be getting my engineers to slip stuff like this in to drive the rumour sites into a nutty frenzy. Imagine the fun if there'd been @3x images.

nlogn 16y ago

I would be concerned less with expense and more with things like how much battery life you can pull off when you have to support the monster gpu such a high res screen would require. When developing for the iPad and iPhone 4, I've noticed it is actually pretty easy to run into fillrate limitations. I would be very impressed if they could pull it off, though, but I doubt it will happen in the next model.