backtop


Print 70 comment(s) - last by hexxthalion.. on Jun 24 at 7:03 AM


The new iPhone is rumored to pack a dual core CPU, an 8 MP camera, and look somewhat like the iPhone 4. The fifth generation model is expected to launch in Sept. and is rumored to be named the "iPhone 4GS".  (Source: Google Images)

A "Retina Display" iPad is also reportedly incoming.  (Source: Apple)
Company struggles to stay competitive in the face of the Android army's onslaught

The pace of Apple Inc.'s (AAPL) iPhone launches has slowed, as June is expected to come and go with no new iPhone.  Though Apple fans have the new white iPhone and a new U.S. carrier -- Verizon Communications, Inc. (VZ) -- to comfort themselves with, analysts still pointed to the lack a new model as a major issue affecting the company's stock.

Still, the fifth generation iPhone (which some say will actually be named the iPhone 4GS, rather than the iPhone 5), codenamed "Telluride", will launch within three months according to Bloomberg.

The September iPhone will bring with it a new dual-core CPU, the same Apple A5 processor found in the iPad 2 (though it may be underclocked to conserve battery life).  Bloomberg contradicts previous reports saying its sources close to Apple are saying that their will be a 8 megapixel image sensor for the rear camera (previous reports suggested the phone would retain its 5 MP sensor).

The sources at Apple suggest that the phone will look a lot like the current iPhone.

Framington, Mass.-based research firm IDC says that despite introducing new models every year, Apple is having trouble keeping up with Google Inc.'s (GOOG) Android operating system and wealth of hardware partners.  It estimates that Apple will hold an 18.5 percent market share at the end of 2011, while Google will have 38.9 percent of the market -- over twice as much.  

The race between Android and the iPhone is increasingly looking like the 80s and 90s race between the Mac and the Windows PC -- and we all know how that turned out.  That's rough news for Apple, which currently gets half its revenue from the iPhone.

The launch of the fifth gen. iPhone will also correspond with the launch iOS 5.  One key advance in the new operating system will be the introduction of over-the-air (OTA) updates, a feature long supported by Android.  Other reports indicate that the new iPhone may grace the Sprint Nextel Corp. (S) or Deutsche Telekom AG's (DTE) T-Mobile network in the U.S.

In related news, Bloomberg also claimed that its sources delivered information on two other pending Apple gadgets.  One will be a low-priced, smaller version of the iPhone, based on the hardware of the iPhone 4.  That device will be aimed at developing countries -- an area where struggling Finnish phone maker Nokia Oyj. (HEL:NOK1V) has traditionally dominated.

A new iPad is also rumored to be coming, which uses a scaled up version of the "Retina Display" found in the iPhone 4.  The device would boost about a third higher screen resolution and would include a more responsive touch layer.

It is rumored that Apple is planning to bump up the launch of the sixth generation iPhone to Spring 2012.  Possibly named the "iPhone 5" (assuming the "iPhone 4 GS" rumor holds true), the phone is expected to deliver a major hardware update, along the lines of the update in the fourth generation.

DailyTech recently spoke to a former Apple executive who disclosed that the company is hoping to release iOS-powered LCD television sets sometime late this year or early next year, as well.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By MrBlastman on 6/22/2011 11:55:21 AM , Rating: -1
You should work for Apple! That is "thinking different." You have just pulled a Steve.

quote:
1) Most people don't use their iPad at the same distance they use their iPhone.
2) Because of point 1, you don't need the same PPI for picture quality to appear the same.


Lets see, a "Retina" display was originally defined as one that has such a high pixel density your retina can not tell the difference.

To a normal nerd/geek, we deal with absolutes--set measures for a term. We realize that this pixel density should not change for a given display. We also realize that this density should not be dependent on the distance you are away from the screen because well, your distance will be variable in most situations.

Thus, you clearly need to introduce a standard--a benchmark, for which the term "retina display" will apply towards. The i-Phone did this with the display via the default pixel density.

Now, you come along trying to justify the assumed weaker pixel density of the i-Pad by saying, "You're holding it wrong, you need to hold it further out. There--you see? Now it has a Retina display, like it did all along."

Amazing. The force of Steve is strong in this one.


By StevoLincolnite on 6/22/2011 12:24:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Amazing. The force of Steve is strong in this one.


I trained him well, I did.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 12:35:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Lets see, a "Retina" display was originally defined as one that has such a high pixel density your retina can not tell the difference.
Which dynamically changes depending on how far your eyes are away from the screen, just as the OP stated.

As stated below 300ppi only applies on a 3.5" screen with 960x640 resolution with your eyes around 12 inches from your face. Change one of those variables and the 300ppi number no longer applies.

You can get the same effect on any LCD. If I stand back 15-16 inches back from my 4" Android device with an 800x480 resolution, i can no longer identify the pixels on screen either.

This of course all assumes 20/20 vision, those with weaker eyesight most likely can't perceive the pixels and lower ppi's as well.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Nanobaud on 6/22/2011 4:28:34 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
As stated below 300ppi only applies on a 3.5" screen with 960x640 resolution with your eyes around 12 inches from your face . Change one of those variables and the 300ppi number no longer applies.


I try to resist labeling people based on what products they like, but if that is what happens to you when you look at an iPhone you are either a 1950's cartoon character, or way too much of a fan.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 5:05:58 PM , Rating: 2
Why does one assume that because I am detailing the underlying technology of an Apple display that I must be an Apple fan?

I never have and never will own an iPhone, I'm an avid Android proponent and most likely will be for some time.

The only Apple product I do happen to own, was a gift.

Amazing I know, being objective is soooo 1998..


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Nanobaud on 6/22/2011 5:29:28 PM , Rating: 3
The technology detail was fine, but far less remarkable than the physiological detail.

nBd


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Camikazi on 6/22/2011 5:37:36 PM , Rating: 2
Reread what they quoted, it says with YOUR EYES around 12 inches away form YOUR FACE. what was quoted is a cartoon moment when the eyes pop out of the face. They were poking fun at the image written cause you used the wrong words :P


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 5:58:57 PM , Rating: 2
*Facepalm*/*Epic Fail*

Completely misread the response, thanks for pointing out my stupidity without being too harsh ;)


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By AbuGarcia on 6/22/2011 1:18:50 PM , Rating: 4
At the end of the day its just a marketing term...


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 1:42:14 PM , Rating: 1
At the end of the day calling the device 'Magical' is JUST a marketing term.

While 'Retina', is surely a marketing term, its not JUST a marketing term, its also a feature backed by scientific fact.

For the last time.. Resolution + screen size + distance away from eyes = ppi required for your eyes to not be able to distinguish between pixels..

If a device has a 'Retina' display, it merely has accounted for this formula in which at normal viewing distances, you can no longer perceive the pixels on screen, not that you can NEVER perceive the pixels on the screen.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By MrBlastman on 6/22/2011 1:49:52 PM , Rating: 1
Instead of trying to pull a Steve and give each device a different distance--why not do the proper thing and set a default pixel density for the display based the average closest range distance for viewing--i.e. the distance already established with the i-Phone?

That makes the most sense. Anything else is just Apple.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 2:07:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Instead of trying to pull a Steve and give each device a different distance
Thank you but I like to remain objective, and you know investigate the truth for myself. Unlike yourself in which you are clearly using your apple hatred in a sad attempt to prove your point. Sadly, the result is your head is probably just as far up your *** as the very man you are making fun of.
quote:
why not do the proper thing and set a default pixel density for the display based the average closest range distance for viewing- i.e. the distance already established with the i-Phone?
So let me get this straight, you want to base it off of average closest distance of viewing for a tablet application, based on the distance from a completely different application? Yes that makes sense.

Most people don't hold their phone within a foot of their eyes when using them, why on earth would you base your tablet viewing distances off of the same metric?

The best part is most people probably would not be able to perceive the pixels even if the ppi was lower on a device like the iPhone a s these numbers assume basically perfect vision.

This has absolutely nothing to do with Steve Jobs, as much as you would like it too, this is flat out to do with your eyes and eyes alone. Nothing you do or say is going to change the facts, and the fact is you don't need the same ppi for further viewing distances.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By MrBlastman on 6/22/2011 2:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Sadly, the result is your head is probably just as far up your *** as the very man you are making fun of.


My ass? Really? You're just spewing marketing mumbo jumbo out your ass--all over the DT pages. Good lord, what'd you do, suck off Steve the other day? It sure seems like it as he gave you a nice reacharound. He must have used some lube with it too.

A standard is a STANDARD. Pixel density is a STANDARD. Who are you to tell me how I should use my phone, tablet or monitor? Are you the all saying master of usage--or are you saying Apple is--and they will tell you how you have to use your device and using any closer than they say you should isn't right?

Please.

This is the most feeble, ridiculous attempt to try and justify a marketing "standard" that I have ever heard.

What about people with poor vision? What about people with glasses? What about short people? What about people with long arms? What about people with smaller hands?

The fact of the matter is--you can not base a standard for a resolution of a display based off of distance it is held from the face because EVERY SINGLE PERSON WILL HOLD IT AT A DIFFERENT DISTANCE. Is this hard to compute?

NO. It shouldn't be. People will hold objects at different distances and trying to say that a tablet doesn't need the same resolution as a phone is purely an opinion and based off of nothing but speculation that everyone will use it at that distance.

The fact of the matter is, they won't. People will use it at whatever distance they are comfortable with and this is a fact.

Thus, if it is a fact, and it is, you instead need to base the standard off of a set PIXEL DENSITY instead of an assumptive distance.

This is what standards are based off of. Facts. Not assumptions.

There, are you happy? You've thoroughly pissed me off and I think you now hold the distinct title as the first person on DT that has caused me to rip their backside apart since Porkpie.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 3:37:56 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
A standard is a STANDARD. Pixel density is a STANDARD. Who are you to tell me how I should use my phone, tablet or monitor?
In terms of a 'Standard' in which we are defining the point in which your eyes can no longer perceive pixels on screen, Pixel density is a NUMBER, nothing more nothing less.

300ppi is not the standard period! ppi + distance from the screen is! Its a sliding scale, and thus cannot be possibly be a standard as it is not a static number.

According to Apple most people hold their phone 10-12 inches from their face. Most would say they hold it further but lets just assume they are correct. So in the case of the iPhone nobody is telling you how to use your device, but if you don't use it in the way in which it was meant to be viewed, the results are not going to be the same.

The average viewing distance for a tablet is not within a foot, period.. nothing you do or say is going to change this. So why on earth would you design a product based on what the minority will use? I'm sure some people that can't see hold their iPhone right up to their face, should we increase it to 400ppi to appease those people?

You have a clear disdain for Apple and for all intents and purposes I don't really like them either, but merely discounting the facts so that you can make an overload jobs joke does not make you correct in the slightest.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Fritzr on 6/22/2011 6:45:55 PM , Rating: 2
@MrBlastman

The term "Retina Display" is similar to the term "20/n" vision" (ex 20/20 vision)

A person with 20/3000 vision (legally blind) CAN see a bald eagle clearly at 12 inches. A person with 20/20 vision (often called perfect eyesight) cannot identify a bald eagle at 20 miles. Distance from the eyes is part of the definition of these measurements. (The optometric measure is; at 20 feet the object appears as clear as perfect vision sees it at n feet)

The iPhone Retina Display has an APPARENT pixel size AT NORMAL VIEWING DISTANCE that is smaller than what the human eye can perceive. If that is 300ppi at 12 inches, then any display with a ppi=>300 is a retina display if and only if it is meant to be viewed at a distance of NOT LESS THAN 12 inches.

A 108" LCD TV with a "retina display" by your definition requires a 300ppi or smaller pixel size. In reality you will not view a 108" display from a distance of 12 inches. The viewing distance will be closer to 20 feet or more from the screen. A 108" retina display could get away with a similar resolution to what the iphone has as long as, at the recommended viewing distance, individual pixels have an apparent size that is less than what a person with normal vision (20/20) can see clearly.

Retina display is not a numeric resolution, it is defined by the normal vision of a normal person at a distance that is recommended for viewing the display. This might be a viewing distance of 1 inch if mounted on a headset or 100 feet if displayed on a cinema screen.

Obviously you will be using a much larger pixel on a cinema screen then you use on a screen mounted on your eyeglasses. Both can be retina displays though, even if the cinema uses a pixel nearly as big as the entire headmounted display viewed from 100 meters.

This "Retina Display" effect is the reason why with graphics a given resolution has a maximum enlargement size recommended. Camera sites will give various resolution recommendations in terms of how big a print can be before the individual pixels make the image "blocky".


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Botia on 6/23/2011 10:30:26 AM , Rating: 2
I find it just a little bit funny that you arguing about a marketing term using logic, math, and science. Wouldn't it be better to ask, "How does Retina Display make you feel?"


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 3:54:48 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Instead of trying to pull a Steve and give each device a different distance
This is actually getting quite sad.

There is no default pixel density as it is a sliding scale. Period!

You have not given any response to this fact, yet you continue to leave long winded replies based on this incorrect theory.

Funny part is you clearly are not alone judging by my ratings, yet nobody has responded to the response above in any of my posts.. Merely down rating me, or reiterating the same incorrect responses.

Best part is this has nothing to do with Apple but any display driven devices in general. Its a rule that covers pretty much anything and everything, not merely Apple products.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Pirks on 6/22/2011 4:18:29 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You clearly are not alone judging by my ratings, yet nobody has responded to the response above in any of my posts. Merely down rating me, or reiterating the same incorrect responses.
Welcome to the club Omni :P


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By dark matter on 6/22/2011 2:04:10 PM , Rating: 2
So, let me get this straight. By your calculation EVERYTHING has a retina display.

Awesome.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 2:16:27 PM , Rating: 1
Exactly!!!!

Which is why I laughed when Apple first released the technology. I stated it would just confused users as technically there will ALWAYS be a point when you can no longer perceive the pixels on a display.

The idea itself is technically sound, but it always depends on the application in question. Had they released the iPad first with a 'Retina' display first, nobody would be questioning this as they would have picked the respective ppi based on normal tablet viewing distances and nobody would be the wiser.

Unfortunately Jobs and as such the media mentioned the 300ppi number as though it was set it stone.. leaving the door open to where we are today.. MASS confusion..


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By BSMonitor on 6/22/2011 2:53:39 PM , Rating: 1
What's confusing? No matter how close you hold the iPhone 4 to your eyes, they cannot physically see the pixels.

Seems pretty clear to me. The screen too.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By MrTeal on 6/22/2011 3:08:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's not really correct. The eye resolves angular resolution, not size. Most people quote about 1 arcminute for low contrast objects, I've seen 0.6" used for normal vision. The pixels of the iPhone 4 are 78um and are fixed in size, so if you move it closer or farther you change the angle that the pixel subtends and it can go from being indistinguishable to visible. Get it close enough, and you can see the pixels.

Obviously, there's limits there since you can only focus on objects a certain distance away. Try this though, make a big bitmap with alternating black and white pixels, and display it on your phone. Move it back and forth, and note when it goes from gray to being able to make out the pixels.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By erple2 on 6/22/2011 6:43:28 PM , Rating: 1
If "300 ppi at 12 inches" is considered the limit of normal vision, I suppose that implies that you can see roughly 200 pixels per degree? (about 206 in reality).

300 / ( 2 * arctan ( 0.5/12 ) ) * pi / 180

Up to reasonably close distances to your eye (about the imperceptible 3 inches from your face), halving or "thirding" the distance to your eye results in a doubling or tripling of the required PPI density of the display to maintain the same pixel density per degree. If you double the distance (ie 24" from your face), you need roughly half the PPI to maintain the same pixel density per degree. Interesting. That implies that the non-iPhone4's are "retina displays" at 2+ feet from your nose.

Curious indeed.

So I guess at about 15 feet, my TV becomes a "retina display" as long as it has a PPI of at least 20. So if TV's are all 1080p, that implies that I'd need at MOST a that was 1080/20 or 54" wide to be a "retina display". That implies a 62" TV.

Where was I going with this? I can't remember...


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By Fritzr on 6/22/2011 7:09:21 PM , Rating: 3
You're on the right track. CRT TVs use an additional trick, the pixels are larger than the dot pitch so the edges overlap. This is the only difference between a TV monitor and a computer monitor. The TV monitor smears the picture to hide the graininess of the picture, the computer monitor uses pixels as close to the dpi in size as possible to eliminate the window screening effect without overlapping.

The Commodore 1702 computer monitor displayed TV resolution pictures with the window screening clearly visible, since the pixel size was chosen to eliminate the blurring caused by overlapping pixels without the precise aim needed to make the pixels exactly the right size.

If you get "too close" to an LCD or similar display you can see the window screening. At normal distances it is not visible to normal eyesight.

In film you will hear "grain" referred to. This is a measure of the "pixel" size on traditional photographic film. You can create negatives for use in printing posters by using either a very fine (small) grain or a very large negative. Preferably both. 10" Glass plate negatives from the 19th century have a resolution greater than all but a very few, very recent digital cameras.

Another real life example you can hold in your hands. (okay maybe not the billboard sized print, but you get the idea :P )

Take a photograph with a 10-12 megapixel resolution. Now make 2 prints, both of them at the full size and resolution of that picture ... one 3 inchx5 inch and the other 30 feet by 50 feet.

It is very unlikely that you will be able to see individual pixels in the small print. the larger one, well you can probably measure the pixel size with an old fashioned wooden ruler ... yet at recommended viewing distances for prints of those sizes, both are "retina display" resolution prints.


RE: Retina Display on the iPad 3?
By omnicronx on 6/22/2011 3:12:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
What's confusing? No matter how close you hold the iPhone 4 to your eyes, they cannot physically see the pixels.
LOL, clearly it is confusing as you just proved my point.

You surely CAN physically see the pixels at distances closer than 10-12 inches as clearly defined in Apples keynote by Mr Jobs himself.

Steve Jobs: "there's a magic number around 300dpi, if you hold something about 10-12 inches away from your eye, it's the limit of the human retina to distinguish pixels."

Those were his exact words when the famous 300+ ppi number was up on the screen during the keynote. Google it if you would like as there are several articles on the subject.


"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki