Apple’s next-gen iPad may feature 2048 × 1536 super high resolution Retina display

InvisibleSHIELD.  Scratch Proof your iPhone 4!Responding to reports of Apple’s next gen iPad’s screen being “super high resolution,” Daring Fireballs’ John Gruber writes, “If the screen is higher resolution, my money is on the same physical size, at 2048 × 1536 resolution. It’s not about reaching some arbitrary pixels-per-inch resolution, but about being exactly double the pixel dimensions of the existing iPad, so that the math for scaling the UI works out. Just like the iPhone 4 — quadruple the pixels in the same physical space. That many pixels on an iPad, though, would require a lot more RAM and one hell of a mobile video card. I hope it’s true, because it’d be beautiful, but I’ll believe it when I see it.”

Full article here.

Electonista reports, “A handful of discoveries on Saturday may have all but confirmed suspicions of a new iPad with a Retina Display. Both Arizona State University researcher Rafeed Chaudhury and mobile app writer Steve Troughton-Smith found images in both the current iBooks 1.2 and its 1.1 predecessor showing background and bookmark images that fit a “2X” iPad resolution that doesn’t exist before. The wood tile image (below) is 1,536 pixels wide, twice the width of the iPad’s screen, and by extension points to a 2048×1536 display on the future Apple tablet.”

Read more in the full article here.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Readers “Manny S.” and “Jax44” for the heads up.]

34 Comments

  1. WiFi model will keep current screen.
    3G-GPS model will have new screen and will be subsidized.

    I bought a 3G-GPS model, but never used the data plan, I wanted the GPS. My above scheme would make me sad, oh well. I wish Apple could tether the iPad to the iPhone so I could get the WiFi version and not miss out on GPS, or better yet include GPS in the WiFi version. My $ .02

  2. Or just open the Bluetooth stack to allow add on gps units. The only reason I jail broke my iPod touch was to allow my gps mouse to talk to it and get sat nav. Works brilliantly. The only thing I want is an open Bluetooth stack in iOS 4.3.

    And yes Mr Jobs I understand that this would decrease battery life, hence the power cable in my car.

  3. A doubling of pixels in both dimensions makes complete sense, but the cost of manufacturing such a high-res multitouch screen can’t be cheap. As we know Apple’s strategy has been to replace older models with newer ones at the same price point or even less, I’ll wait to see it before I believe it.

  4. Sounds good. The iPad and all the Mac line—desktops and portables—should have these high-res displays along with gorilla glass.
    Non-tempered glass should be done away with on the next refresh cycle.

  5. If Apple can offer a 10 inch screen at 2048 × 1536 for $499, they will completely obliterate the competition. Even at $599, it would be pretty amazing.

    But is such a screen even possible in that price range?

  6. “I wish Apple could tether the iPad to the iPhone so I could get the WiFi version…”

    It’s maddening. Works so perfectly on the Mac.
    When I leave home with my WiFi-only iPad it’s like a glorified ebook reader : (

    This will change. Give it time.

  7. Interesting idea.

    I still think a smaller iPad doesn’t make sense — at least for me.

    If I’m not carrying anything with me, I still have my iPhone. And if I am carrying something with me an “8-1/2 x 11″” iPad is always the perfect size to tag along.

    On the other hand, if there are people who want a smaller iPad, this would be the way to do it.

    1. Shrink the existing 1024×768 screen to about 6-7″ with al pixels intact. iPad nano, or something.

    2. Bring out the iPad 2 (at the same size, but a slightly larger screen and a slightly smaller bezel), using a resolution of 2048×1536.

  8. @German Reader, but at 3.5″ the screen still only supports “smartphone” UI conventions.

    I would argue that at about paperback-size, it could support iPad UI conventions.

    I only have room in my life for 2 sizes of mobile objects:

    1. “pocketable” things (phones, etc),
    2. “magazine” size things (iPads, Mackbooks, Notebooks),

    But, there are lots of people — like my wife — who have a third category of “space” in their lives for portable objects.

    Maybe call it “purseable”.

    There’s a reason paperback books have been a hit over the years. This third category really does exist in the real world. It’s just a matter of if Apple can make it work, and if they chose to exploit it.

  9. disposableidentity: but at 3.5″ the screen still only supports “smartphone” UI conventions.
    I would argue that at about paperback-size, it could support iPad UI conventions.

    I doubt that, and Jobs apparently sees it the same way – and most likely he has actually tried different sizes before finally deciding against the smaller sizes.

  10. First of all: HA! This is to the ones who said a Retina iPad would be impractical. Sure, 326ppi would be impractical, but does Apple really need to jump from 130ppi to 326ppi in one generation?

    @cbstolle “WiFi model will keep current screen.
    3G-GPS model will have new screen and will be subsidized.”

    That makes no sense. Apple simply doesn’t work that way.

    @disposableidentity

    No 7″ iPad. That would fragment the range the same way an iPhone nano would. Steve already said no.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.