I really, really hope this is the case. I use my iPad two-three hours a day, and pretty much at the top of my punch list of improvements, is higher resolution. You really do notice it when using press reader, or Zinio to read magazines - the pixelation is very evident on the smaller fonts.
Assuming that Apple can source such a display, driving it will be very resource intensive. A dual-core CPU will help, but it will also need a powerful (read power hungry) GPU. I have no doubt that Apple is looking at very high resolution displays for the iPad. That doesn't mean that they'll be able to get it ready for this release, though.
"hints included in the new iOS 4.3 beta seeded to developers earlier this week indicate that Apple may be preparing to move to Imagination Technologies' next-generation GPU architecture with the SGX543 on future devices."
The fundamental issue is yield. The more pixels in a display, the greater the likelihood that you'll end up with an obtrusive stuck pixel or a significant number of dead pixels, rendering the panel unsaleable. This is one of the major reasons why we haven't seen any significant increases in the resolution of laptop or desktop displays in some years. The Retina display on the iPhone 4 isn't hugely expensive, nor particularly innovative - there are a number of other handsets with similar pixel densities. 960x340 is 0.6 million pixels, versus three million pixels in this rumoured iPad 2.
Very high resolution displays ameliorate this issue somewhat because bad pixels are less noticeable, but I just don't see how anyone could produce a display with such a vast pixel count cheaply enough to meet the iPad's price point.
If Apple have figured it out, the iPad 2 is almost irrelevant. This would be one of the most significant breakthroughs in display technology in decades. Bear in mind that 2560x1600 is the same resolution as the current class-leader in desktop displays, the $900 30-inch Dell Ultrasharp. In order to make it work, Apple would have to change the entire economics of LCD manufacture. I really do hope it's true, but I can't see how.
Part of the reason 30" displays cost as much as they do is that they're just physically larger, regardless of DPI. This requires a lot more yield-sensitive silicon on its own, and also requires a lot more in terms of display illumination.
Also, let's not ignore economies of scale: compare the number of iPads sold in the last year to the number of 30" monitors ever sold.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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 :)
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.
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.
Apple's use of the term "retina display" has nothing to do with the distance the display is from your eyes. The point is that, no matter how close you get to the display, your eye has trouble distinguishing individual pixels. In my experience, that's actually true with the iPhone 4.
Eh, Steve said that it was at a "normal" 10-12 inch distance from the eyes, IIRC. I agree, though, it's very hard to see those pixels, but I also agree with OP that you hold it quite a bit farther away. They'll call it a Retina Display almost for sure, if just for branding.
This blog post explains perfectly why I am slowly falling in love with what Apple is doing for displays. I don't have anything to add separate to it, but thought it was relevant.
Firstly, the perceived lack-of-outdoors-usability hasn't stopped them selling a ton of the first generation model already.
Secondly, my experience of using an ipad outdoors -- limited, because I don't have a garden -- is that it's fine except in direct bright sunlight from a cloudless sky (i.e. a single focal very bright light source): it's still readable on a day with high broken cloud and sunlight. The extreme case (bright sunlight, blue sky) is still manageable if you can position the ipad so it's not reflecting the sun straight in your eyes.
Seriously. There has been progress in the daylight-usability of backlit LCD displays over the past decade ...
Are you talking about outdoor use in sunny Scotland? Both direct bright sunshine and wanting to spend time outdoors might both be limited by the local climate.
And "they've sold a lot" is an incredibly weak argument. It applies to most things Apple has launched in the past five years yet they seem to keep improving them anyway and indeed selling more of the newer ones.
I actually live in Scotland. I'd love to be able to stroll over to the Botanic Gardens and use my iPad to do some reading/work while breathing fresh air, but I was sorry to find that's not really an option, rain or shine.
Yes, you can still read stuff outdoors (or in conservatories) but only barely making out the text, images and interfaces are spoilt completely. The first time I tried it my reaction was 'I can't see a damn thing.' It's really not at all optimal for outdoor use, unlike the Kindle. And the Notion Ink 'Adam' seems to have a much better outdoor performance.
I think the iPad's mobility is its killer feature: being able to take it into the lounge, recline on the sofa, pass it around the room, use it places where a laptop is too conspicuous, etc. Being able to take it to outdoor destinations would obviously boost that significantly.
2048x1536 resolution has a name: 2K (from the digital film world). iPads are already widely used on movie sets; this would more than cement that trend. Hope it's true!!!
Then again, a 30" display is 2560x1600 and costs over $1000. Will they really get that many pixels in a 10" display and still keep the price around $500.
Physical dimension is a very large factor in LCD panel pricing, and a 10" panel is only 10-15% the size of a 30" panel. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple could get hi-res 10" panels for cheap, especially since they'll be ordering millions of those.
So if it's easier to pack 10MM subpixels into a 10" display, why do they sell 30" displays of that resolution and not 10" displays of that resolution?
I figure the high cost of 30" panels is due to the defect rate, which increases with number of pixels (which is why 1920x1200 displays cost about the same, regardless of whether they are 27" or 24"; same defect rate). And, I'd think it's easier to make a big working pixel that a small working pixel.
In conclusion, I highly doubt that the next iPad is going to have a screen of this resolution.
Hah, my tweet(s) got quite some attention! I'm not even sure if I found that image myself, but I do remember discussing it on IRC in August (and just recently brought it back up with all the new rumors).
(Lots of attention, and, it seems, lots of follow requests. Future note: don't use a private account to post interesting info from, if it might be referenced around the internet.)
Why would they make an iPad with a resolution nearly as high as their Cinema Display, far more than most of their desktops? I think this is an awful lot of extrapolating- a much better explanation for those images is a sloppy build system.
I think so too, probably the artists at Apple is producing these higher res assets for a future iPad with retina display. They already know it will happen at some point. But not for this upcoming revision.
At the same time desktop monitors hover at 100 PPI resolution indefinitely. There has been only minimal improvement on desktop monitor resolution since the good old CRT days.
It's called '2x' resolution because it's twice as many pixels per dimension, and because you append "@2x" to image resources for them to be used in your app. It is 4x the pixels, but that I guess Apple figured that took slightly more brainpower than just imagining twice as many pixels tall, and twice as many pixels wide and calling it '2x'.
