

IPad 2 Likely to Have 2048x1536 Screen Resolution - siglesias
http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/15/ipad-2-screen-likely-to-have-2048x1536-resolution/

======
ghshephard
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.

------
necubi
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.

~~~
JofArnold
Based on the GPU device driver information and leaks about A5, it looks like
they do indeed have such hardware.

------
jdietrich
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.

~~~
irq
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.

------
jim_h
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.

~~~
flyosity
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
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.

~~~
flyosity
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
This shows why being first to the market with a good product can seal your
advantage for years. Assuming it's not too early.

------
shalmanese
It would still be a retina display since iPads are held further away that
iPhones in typical use.

~~~
baddox
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.

~~~
Xuzz
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.

------
philwelch
What I'd _really_ love would be a MacBook with that kind of resolution.

~~~
orangecat
Me too, but considering Apple's focus I have low expectations for future Macs.

------
jackvalentine
[http://blog.gatunka.com/2009/11/03/japanese-computers-
still-...](http://blog.gatunka.com/2009/11/03/japanese-computers-still-living-
it-8-bit/)

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.

------
Tycho
That would be nice but what they _really_ need is to make the thing usable
outdoors.

~~~
cstross
Do they really?

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 ...

~~~
ZeroGravitas
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.

~~~
Tycho
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.

------
foobarbazoo
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!!!

~~~
jrockway
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.

I'm going to go with "unlikely".

~~~
kijinbear
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.

~~~
jrockway
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.

------
Xuzz
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.)

------
Rusky
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.

~~~
bni
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.

------
zokier
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.

~~~
originalgeek
I know. I need a 30" 'retina' display. My iPhone has ruined my desktop
experience.

------
rdoherty
Unless my math is wrong going from 1024x768 to 2048x1536 is quadrupling the
resolution, not doubling, as the article states. Am I missing something?

~~~
flyosity
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'.

