“As screen sizes incrementally bump up their pixel densities, the most obvious difference to users is that icons, menu bars, window controls and text in the user interface all grow smaller,” Dilger writes. “While that allows for larger documents to be viewed within a smaller screen, it will eventually run into the problem of the user interface being too small to see, let alone easily target with a shrinking pointer that eventually becomes lost in a vast sea of pixels.”
Dilger writes, “When Apple introduced iPhone 4 and its 960×640 Retina Display, it didn’t display more of the interface at once; it simply sharpened the existing interface to the point where individual pixels became invisible… Apple is reportedly planning to double the iPad’s resolution, just as it did with iPhone 4. This would result in a very high 2048×1536 resolution on the next iPad, higher than the company’s largest 17 inch MacBook Pro and in the ballpark of its 27 inch, 2560×1440 LED Cinema Display.”
“The resolution independent design of iOS will also allow Apple to potentially sell both new iPad 2 models with a very high resolution as well as the existing iPad at a low price tier, without causing fragmentation issues for developers or users,” Dilger writes. “The same apps can run seamlessly on both, supplying normal or double resolution graphic assets as needed to take full advantage of the new screens while still working normally on existing models.”
Much more in the full article – recommended – here.
I’m still waiting for resolution independence. Haven’t we been hearing about it since OS X 10.3 or so?
Yeah, most of that makes sense. I just don’t think it’s going to happen with this year’s iPad. But I’d love to be wrong…
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
As for full resolution independence on the Mac, I think THAT will arrive with the major release of Mac OS AFTER “Lion,” when it will no longer be called Mac OS “ten.”
IIRC,we’ve been hearing about it since one of the Stevenotes on NeXT in the early 90s.
Being in Texas, I’m waiting for resolution secession. We’re going to do away with the whole screen resolution thang.
Great information in the full article.
Personally, I believe a display of this class would be a game changer. Not sure that they can bring it to market this year though.
More here, for those that are interested.
http://tinyurl.com/4oqexcx
“Substantiated rumor”=oxymoron
I just don’t see it happening on iPad 2. Maybe next year.
They should announce OS XI on 11-11-11, at an event called taking it to eleven!
Back with NeXT the push was for vector graphics on screen. That was the whole purpose of Display PostScript. With NeXT knowing the exact ppi of the screen it certainly appeared to be resolution independent. It wasn’t. However, vector based graphics on screen has pretty much become a reality even in the Windows world.
True screen resolution independence is something *completely* *different*. With screen resolution independence if an application drew a 5″ diameter circle on the screen it would not matter if the screen were 100 ppi, 103.5 ppi, 157 ppi, 256 ppi, 305 ppi or even 100xpi ppi. The circle would be 5′ diameter on each and every screen.
True screen resolution independence is not pixel doubling; it is not vector graphics.
Printers seem to do it by having the scaling factor in their drivers.
For decades desktops and laptops have assumed 72 ppi on screen or some fixed multiple of that. Ever notice that typing 72 point type on a screen that is 100 ppi results in type that is significantly less than 1″ tall? That’s why. It’s the 72 ppi assumption.
However, take one of these “modern” implementations that claim to be “screen resolution independent” and do this:
Take a monitor with approximately 100 ppi and draw a circle that is 10″ diameter on it as accurately as you can. Save that graphics file. Close the file. Reopen the file to make 100% sure the circle is still 10″ in diameter on that screen screen.
Close the file and shut down the computer.
Now swap out the monitor for a higher resolution monitor.
Open that file and see what the size of the circle is. It’s NOT 10″ in diameter.
Even if you go in and manually play with the scaling factor in the OS, it still won’t be exactly 10″ in diameter.
Yes, KenC, we’ve heard about screen resolution independence since Mac OS X 10.3. Actually, we’ve been hearing noises about it since the “Pink” days.
It is one of a few things I really want to see in a true, modern OS. However, I stopped holding my breath for it long, long ago.
@ dijonaise
I love that idea.
However, the chances of that happened fit into that tiny region bounded by 1 divided by infinity and zero.
And alternative scenario… (which I have previously suggested)
This year, iPad 2 keeps the current screen specs. This will let Apple optimize the current design to incorporate camera(s), faster processor, more system RAM, gyroscope like iPhone, and other necessary improvements while keeping the manufacturing cost reasonable so that the low end model is still $499 retail. Those changes are enough for iPad 2.
NEXT year, the iPad design is further optimized and moves to an 8-inch screen that keeps the current 1024×764 resolution. This combination is 160 pixels per inch (PPI), matching the PPI used by iPhone’s iOS. Yes, the iPhone 4 Retina Display is double that resolution, but the overall iOS on iPhone is still designed for the previous resolution. I think this is actually the ideal PPI for iPad as well, and the current iPad screen (at about 130 PPI) was a design compromise to make the product feasible in 2010 at $499. No “fragmentation” with this change, because the resolution does not change.
Concurrently (next year), a new iPad size in introduced. 12.5-inch screen at 1600×1200 resolution. This combination is also 160 PPI. This change will cause some platform fragmentation (due to a new resolution). But who does NOT think iPad will be offered in more than one screen size at some point?
While those screen sizes and resolutions are not “retina,” an iPad is typically used at a greater distance from the user’s eyes, so perhaps going all the way up to 326 PPI (like iPhone 4) is not necessary. 160 PPI will make things about 20% sharper than the current iPad screen, while keeping production cost reasonable. A 2048×1536 LCD squeezed down to 10 inches, even if it was being manufactured in the mass quantity needed for iPad, must be VERY expensive.
I have a meeting with Steve Jobs soon…
There was talk about resolution independence as far back as the late 80’s, when Adobe was rolling out Postscript. It made good sense then and it’s way past overdue now. I really don’t get it.
@ alansky
Postscript (as with Display Postscript on NeXT computers) is vector graphics. It is not screen resolution independence. They’re two different things. You can have one without the other.
@Grim Reaper
Think about it this way… if you don’t kill him, he’ll eventually give you a macbook air that’s so thin, you could reap souls with it while checking your facbeook
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
Who needs a scythe when you can use a Macbook Air? Thinner than air, sharper than death… 😀
@ Grim Reaper,
What goes around, comes around jerkoff. Hopefully sooner than later in your case.
@ Grim Reaper,
Everybody meets their end. The difference between Jobs and slug slime like you is that he will meet his having brought happiness to millions, and you will meet yours with a wormy heart.
Apple will release several versions of ipad 2 which will include an ipad pro with retina resolution and a model with simply a high resolution as well as the model actual with the addition of a few new features.
I am very happy with my wifi only iPad. It does everything I need except print a document, and even that is easily worked around by email.
I don’t need a higher resolution screen, nor a camera, nor two cameras.
So if Apple retain this model as the starter version and reduce the price it will provide huge competion to all the Android slates currently offered or arriving soon, especially the 7 inch models.
@CourtJester
Regarding printing from your iPad. There’s a hack for that, goes on your computer, not the iPad. after that, the iPad sees your printer and prints. It’s that simple.
A higher resolution display for the iPad seems like overkill (to me) unless prices for the extra resolution displays are nearly equal. I’m sure Apple intends to hold the prices on the new iPad 2 to the same prices as the iPad 1. I’d rather have an SDXC slot that would be usable for storing videos and music than a higher resolution display.
@ken1w
Magazines are printed at 300dpi and we hold those at the same distance as an iPad really. I think it would be a benefit to get to that res and would maybe help the whole iMag thing. Like your theory on iPad evolution. I think the linchpin is going to be the fact that the new iPad will have the 499 pricepoint and the og iPad will drop down to decimate the competitors pricepoint …bigger screen, homogenous Appsphere™ , better value etc.
someone needs to create an anal-yst watch app so that we have rankings on these techtards who spout utter gibberish and get paid for it.
can’t wait for the hilarity that will ensue once iPad 2 is released.
RetinaDisplay is really needed on the iPhone … it is definitely NOT needed on the iPad. On the iPad individual pixels are invisible at a little over a foot away and most people hold it father away. The little 1/8″ x 1/8″ app icons WITHIN the folder icons are perfectly resolvable and identifiable at any distance. THAT IS REALLY MORE THAN SUFFICIENT RESOLUTION. Better to put the resources elsewhere where they’re really needed in order to improve performance and keep the cost reasonable … like in increasing the memory to 1-Gb and storage to 128-Gb while making the device lighter than 1-pound. Now THAT would be something!
@ feral
> and the og iPad will drop down to decimate the competitors pricepoint
I don’t expect Apple to lower the low-end price for iPad. Apple usually keeps the same price and increases the “value” of the product. So those rumored improvements (such as camera, better processor, more system RAM, thinner, lighter, etc.) add value at the same retail price. Also, $499 works well because it transitions nicely from iPod touch, which tops out at $399 for the 64GB model.
Apple is already destroying the competition with the current iPad at the current pricing. Apple has no motivation to make less profit per iPad sale.
Note: If iPad had started out priced at $799 or $999 last year (as many of those “analysts” predicted), then there would have been room for a price reduction this year.