Advertisement: Introducing the new iPod touch. Now with FaceTime, Retina display, HD video recording and Game Center. From $229. Buy Now.
“Apple is expected to launch the second-generation iPad in the first-quarter of 2011, the suppliers noted,” Pan and You report.
Full article here.
To mark Apple’s 50th-anniversary milestone, CEO Tim Cook sent a reflective internal memo to employees, quoting Steve Jobs and…
Following the launch of the AirTag 2 earlier this year, Apple has begun rolling out firmware version 3.0.45. The new update replaces the…
To commemorate Apple’s 50th anniversary, CEO Tim Cook shared previously unseen archival materials with The Wall Street Journal and told…
Apple TV celebrated season two of “Your Friends & Neighbors” with a star-studded red carpet premiere at the New York Historical museum…
Iran’s Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) has threatened U.S. tech companies with attacks. The list includes Apple, Nvidia, Microsoft, and…
I just got a new iPad.
It’s running 4.2.
It IS the new iPad!
First quarter of 2011… right on schedule.
That one’s worn on the lapel.
Yu not You of course.
Yu not You of course.
“Apple is expected to launch the second-generation iPad in the first-quarter of 2011, the suppliers noted,” Pan and You report.
Time to put the FaceTime iSight camera in the hole that is in the frame of the iPad now!
No that’s right.
They told us, or me, which from them to us makes us you, who now now being me, or is it I, will be reporting it to the next person, you, or, um. Wait….
Never mind.
Who’s on first.
@Me In LA:
Damn it! No iPad in my country yet! no new iPod. But I just bought the ne iPod from the neighbor country: Aussie!!!
The touch panel and glass of the second generation are 99.9% likely to be the same as the first generation’s so how would they know it’s for a second gen?
Can’t wait to play with the new 2nd gen iPad when it comes out!
BurningZeppelin, did you swim?
Retina Display?
Camera of course….
Yep we need retina display and front facing camera and its a done deal. My macbook will become a media server.
@ Joe
iPad 2.0 will NOT have a “retina display,” if you mean a display with the same pixel density of the iPhone’s 326 DPI screen. A 300 DPI display at 10 inches would be 2400×1800 pixels; that’s a higher resolution than the 30-inch Cinema Display… a lot of pixels to push around (more than 5x the current iPad screen). Apple is not going to squeeze that much graphics horsepower into next year’s iPad.
In fact, I think next year’s iPad will have the exact same screen as the current iPad, to minimize platform fragmentation for at least the first two years. They are more likely to introduce a smaller iPad option with the same 1024×768 pixels squeezed into a 7-inch screen. Since the resolution is the same, it will not cause platform fragmentation. iPhone went three years before its screen resolution got an upgrade.
The front (user) facing built-in camera seems possible, but it’s a bit of a usability compromise. With the iPhone, it is very light so the user can easily hold up and aim the iPhone with one hand at the idea camera angle for some “FaceTime.” With an iMac or MacBook, the camera is stationary with the ideal camera angle. But with iPad… it would be tiring to hold an iPad out in front of you, and you would need both hands to hold it steady. If you are seated with the iPad in your lap, that’s about the worst possible camera angle. Also, the iPad is often comfortably held at a slight “off-angle” (not at 90 degrees to your line of sight), so what’s the ideal direction for a built-in camera to point? If there is a user-facing camera, it needs to be at one of the CORNERS (on opposite side of the button) and NOT dead center like it is with iPod touch. The “borders” of an iPad are its handles, and you can’t put the camera where you might likely hold it.
If next year’s iPad did NOT have a built-in camera, and Apple came up with some other clever way to allow FaceTime on iPad, it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
@ken1w
You are completely wrong, if you think, you can shrink a 9.7 inch touch interface to 7 inch, when you keep the same resolution. There is a logical problem, because you have to shrink your fingers also, because each touch interface element will also shrink and it will become more and more difficult to hit the right button – so in the end surface area is more important than resolution.
From a platform und developer perspective it will be much easier to change to a 4 times higher “near retina display” resolution with the same display size like iPhone4, because you only can but don´t have to upgrade your bitmaps to higher resolution and everything else would work without change.
If you shrink the display surface, you have to redo your complete user interface to get big enough touch elements.
But a high resolution display will get a serious problem with
the actual grafic performance, because there are 4 times more pixels to render. So a near retina display will only make sense with a new Cortex A9 dual core processor with much more grafic power.
Too bad. I was REALLY hoping to get this out of the box in November. Maybe sooner. Since I can really only afford one, for now, I’ll have to wait. But … starting to get a bit twitchy. Been waiting for the 2G since my wife switched from “yeah, right” to “oh, WOW”. I’ll be missing three, perhaps four, more “occasions” while waiting.
About a possible “retina display” on the next gen. First, do we really need it? Second, how hard would it be to cram twice as many pixels into the same “size” icon so the whole thing is transparent to the coders? Third, whatever gave anyone the idea the same CPU that runs the machine will run the graphics? Add a GPU or a dedicated second core and away we go!
Anyone with an iPhone 4 or one of the new iPod Touches realizes the value of the retina display. It’s just so much nicer than any other screen. Apple needs to work it into its other products.
The iPad screen has lower resolution than the original iPhone, and it’s noticeable to me whenever I play with one.
@ peter.s.
> You are completely wrong, if you think, you can shrink a 9.7 inch touch interface to 7 inch, when you keep the same resolution.
You may be right about that, but I was saying that (for next year) a 7-inch iPad was “more likely” than a 10-inch iPad with a 300+ DPI “retina display.” The MOST likely scenario for the next iPad is that the current 10-inch screen at 1024×768 will remain, except that the display component will likely be new to allow the next iPad to be even thinner, lighter, and more power efficient. I think the next iPad will focus on “refinement” of hardware and new software-based features (and maybe that user-facing camera).
Note: If a 10-inch screen has exactly 300 DPI, the resolution is 2400×1800. It is not an exact double of the current resolution numbers (like with iPhone), and the difference in pixel count is about 5.5 times. Even if Apple did not go that high and it was just 4x, that’s a lot to ask of an ultra-thin device that’s expected to run for 10-hours on a battery, with or without a better processor. It will take a few years…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
@ EricN
> The iPad screen has lower resolution than the original iPhone
“Resolution” is usually expressed by the horizontal and vertical pixel count. The iPad display is 1024×768. The original iPhone’s display is 480×320. Even the new iPhone’s display is 960×640. So the iPad’s resolution is higher than any iPhone.
You are comparing the density of pixels, I think. Dots per inch (DPI) or pixels per inch (PPI). The iPhone 4 is 326 DPI. The original iPhone should be exactly half, 163 DPI. The iPad is about 132 DPI. That is lower, but it’s still pretty good. A MacBook (white, Pro, or Air) with a 13.3-inch display has only about 113 DPI.
Higher DPI would obviously be better, and it will be possible once available technology allows something as thin as iPad to have the needed graphics processing power (without melting), still run for 10+ hours on a battery charge, and cost under $500 retail at the low end.
@ken1w
“Resolution” of a display is usually expressed by the pixel count because the size of the display is usually assumed from the context.
But the term properly refers to pixel density, so the original poster was right.
See wikipedia (Display resolution) for elaboration.
@ sam wight
I said “usually,” resolution is the two numbers representing horizontal and vertical pixel count. Apple uses it that way… In the tech specs for iPad and iPhone 4, it says
“1024-by-768-pixel resolution at 132 pixels per inch (ppi)”
“960-by-640-pixel resolution at 326 ppi”
It does not say
132 ppi resolution at 1024-by-768 pixels
But that’s just nit-picking. My point was that the iPad’s pixel density was higher now than most laptops, and Apple will no doubt increase it when practical (for an iPad that is thin and light, does not melt down or cause burns, runs for more than 10 hours on one charge, and costs under $500 retail).
@ken1w
You disagreed with EricN who said the ipad has lower resolution than the original iphone.
But the term “resolution” properly means pixel density (or it would have no meaning for printers), and so by that meaning he was correct.
It’s true that for fixed displays, the term is often used to refer to pixel count, just as Apple did, because the context makes the density implicit. They give the density explicitly in the next clause.
But remember, as great as Apple is, they are not the arbiter of English usage, and the usage EricN employed was more formally correct than was your correction.
That was my point.
“Resolution” means many things in English. It is the outcome of a conflict. It is what you may make on New Year’s day. As you yourself said, in the context of displays (which is the topic here), it “usually” means horizontal an vertical pixel count.
I made my “correction” to make a point. Your “point” is pointless.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Right. The meaning depends on context. And when referring to a specific display device, pixel count gives the pixel density implicitly, and therefore provides the resolution, as derived from resolving power.
When comparing devices of very different sizes, in a paragraph referring to “retina displays”, “resolution” most logically means pixel density. That’s the meaning I understood, and it’s the meaning you understood, and it’s the proper meaning of the word in this context.
It’s fine to elaborate on the point, but you seemed to think you were correcting a mistake, and so I corrected yours.