backtop


Print 58 comment(s) - last by voodoochile123.. on Feb 15 at 2:15 AM


  (Source: blogspot.com)
The iPad 3's big feature will be Retina Display

Rumors regarding the iPad 3's introduction and release dates began circulating back in December, with many suspecting that the iPad 2 successor would make an appearance in February 2012. However, All Things D has reported that an event to introduce the iPad 3 will take place during the first week of March.

The iPad 3 event will be held in San Francisco, California during the first week of March, according to All Things D. Some suspect that Apple will present its latest tablet at the Yerba Buena Center for the Arts, where Apple usually makes its huge product announcements.

The iPad 3, which is still not the confirmed name of the tablet, is expected to resemble the iPad 2 as far as shape and size, but differ as far as what's under the hood. The big difference will be the Retina Display, offering a 2048x1536 pixel screen, which is just over 3 megapixels.

While the Retina Display update is a sure thing, many other possible features are up-in-the-air at this point. There are questions floating around in regards to whether the iPad 3 will have a dual or quad-core processor, for instance. The Verge reported that a dual-core processor is the likely answer after supposed iPad 3 back-shell photos leaked, but Bloomberg reported the opposite, claiming the iPad 3 will have a quad-core chip and LTE capabilities.

Other questions remain, such as whether the iPad 3 will have the digital assistant Siri included as well as NFC, an updated camera, and a 128 GB option.

While the iPad 3's features are uncertain to the public for now, questions won't go unanswered for long as Apple prepares for its March introduction. In fact, Apple is currently scrambling to gather apps for the tablet's debut next month.

According to CNET, Apple typically takes its sweet time picking out the perfect apps to show off during introductory events. However, that doesn't seem to be the case this time, as Apple is reportedly in "crunch mode" to find the best apps that show off the new Retina Display. Apple isn't strictly concerned with apps for the debut, though; it's also working to send its best apps to advertising agency TWBA/Chiat/Day for its iPad 3 commercials.

So far, there's no set date for the release of the iPad 3, but if the iPad 3 is anything like the iPad 2, it will launch about a week or so after the debut event in March.

The iPad 3 launch may be exactly what Apple needs after a tough start to 2012. Last month, The New York Times released its second installment to its iEconomy series, which focused on the poor treatment of workers at Apple's suppliers in China. The report, which cited issues like working long hours with extended overtime, poor working conditions that have led to explosions, and crowded living spaces, drew plenty of attention from both Apple and the public.

Apple CEO Tim Cook blasted the report, saying that Apple cares about each and every worker employed by its overseas suppliers. However, his speech didn't seem to sway the public. Just yesterday, social activist groups Change.org and SumOfUs.org organized demonstrations in front of key Apple stores around the globe to protest Apple's lack of empathy for the workers in factories like Foxconn.

Apple is also facing other issues, such as trouble over its use of its name "iPad," which could possibly ban the tablet in China.

Sources: All Things D, CNET, 9 To 5 Mac, Reuters



Comments     Threshold


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

Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By zlandar on 2/10/2012 9:57:01 AM , Rating: 2
I've held off on buying one because of the resolution issue. Now I'll finally buy one.




RE: Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By Aikouka on 2/10/2012 10:16:05 AM , Rating: 2
Hmm it might be my own ignorance, but I don't get what the draw would be to an iPad with double the resolution. I know some people don't like web browsing on 1024x768, but the resolution seems appropriate when your screen is only about 10".

Doubling the resolution would put it at 2048x1536, which makes it 37% larger than my 27" monitor (1920x1200). That just seems excessive when it comes to things such as web browsing, which I believe is typically the biggest clamor that I've heard in regard to resolution. I foresee people zooming like crazy on the device, because they can't read anything.

Although, like I said... I obviously don't own a device with that many pixels on that size screen, so I might be off. It's mostly just my own musing at this point.


RE: Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By tayb on 2/10/2012 10:36:23 AM , Rating: 2
The page won't be viewed at that resolution. They'll render it much smaller than that but with much greater detail. The biggest draw for me is games and movies.


By XZerg on 2/10/2012 11:30:39 AM , Rating: 2
Games... meh! on a tablet i wonder if that's all that worth it.

Work and multi-tasking (with multiple windows open side-by-side instead of just one window) - now that's where i see the biggest benefit of such a high resolution.

I too have been waiting for the high resolution but Apple is just something I won't touch simply because I am a cheapa$$ and don't want to fork over $$$ for simple add-ons due to their proprietary design. I was hoping that TF2 would be the thing but that was a let down in this terms and other (no usb port on tablet for example) and so now I await for another option - one with the usb and higher resolution.

Performance is not something I value so much as I personally want the tablet to be just an interface for me to remote desktop into a main system. This way I have the portability.


RE: Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By kmmatney on 2/10/12, Rating: 0
RE: Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By Aikouka on 2/10/2012 12:19:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You won't need to zoom in


Not to seem obstinate, but this just doesn't sound right. I don't do a lot of web programming/design, but typically websites are designed to be viewable at a certain resolution without scrolling. For example, the content portion of DailyTech's website is about 1000 pixels wide. If you render this on the (rumored) 2048x1536 screen, the website will take less than half the screen in landscape mode.

The iPad's screen size is 7.76" x 5.82" ( src: http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=12204... ), which means that without zooming, DailyTech will be shown on only 3.78" of the screen. I guess the obvious solution is to not treat it like the current iPad where landscape browsing is almost necessary. Portrait mode may work somewhat better.

If I'm just thinking about this wrong, or something is off, please let me know! :)


By zlandar on 2/10/2012 1:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
That's assuming the web browser does not automatically scale the webpage to fit to the screen resolution.

I'm pretty certain Apple would implement this since they are UI freaks.

The difference between the iPhone 4 and the older generation iPhones is amazing. I hope they use the same type of display instead of what they used in the 4th gen iTouch. Viewing angles and black levels on the iTouch are inferior compared to the phone.


By retrospooty on 2/10/2012 1:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
"some people don't like web browsing on 1024x768, but the resolution seems appropriate when your screen is only about 10"."

It's defintely overkill at that size, as is retina on a 3.5 inch screen on the iPhone - but if it helps usher in higher res screen on other devices, its not just a good thing, its a great thing. Hopefully soon, we will see the death of 13,14, and even 15 inch laptops with 1366x768. Auugh, IU freegin hate it.

Apple does do good things for the industry. They keep the pressure on the others (PC and smartphones) to keep innovating and keep prices low.


RE: Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By sheh on 2/11/2012 12:41:45 AM , Rating: 2
It's not that iPad 3 is going be too high-res compared with desktop monitors, it's that desktop monitors are so lousy pixel-density-wise. That 27" monitor should be 3840x2400 (barely 160-170 dpi), if not 5760x3600. Even at 5760 the DPI would be a little less than iPad 3, which is a little more less than iPhone 4, which is a little less than those recent 1280x720 phones.

The assumption that things must be made with fixed pixel-size fonts and images -- and so high DPI equals small text, tiny icons, unusable GUIs, web pages that take up 1/4 of screen width -- is wrong. Things can be made to scale.

So I'm waiting for desktop monitors with less visible pixels (I hate perceiving the black spacing around each pixel), enough pixels to allow for decent non-integer scaling, smoother fonts, etc.


RE: Increase resolution was what I was waiting for
By Solandri on 2/11/2012 6:40:03 AM , Rating: 2
IBM offered a 15" QXGA (2048x1536, 170 dpi) IPS display option on its corporate Thinkpad T42/p back in 2004. I forget the name they used for it. Something like Pageview. It didn't sell that well. Partly due to the astronomical price (added more than $1k to the price of an already expensive laptop), but also because there just isn't much demand for such high-res displays.

Personally I don't really see the point of QXGA on a 9.7" display. I think having a 12"-15" QXGA tablet would be a lot more useful than having a 10" QXGA tablet which you have to hold up to your face to really take advantage of the extra resolution. Having high DPI makes sense on a phone because you're trying to cram a lot of stuff onto a screen which has to be kept small to keep the phone small. But tablets really should have 12" or 13" screens - that comes closest to duplicating the usable area minus margins of a letter-sized (4:3) or A4-sized (16:10) piece of paper. A letter-sized page is 13.9" diagonal. A4 is 14.3" diagonal.

I always thought the iPad's 9.7" screen was a concession to keep the price low. I don't understand why Apple is sticking with it. It's smaller than what mankind settled upon as optimal for reading over centuries of using paper. I see the tablet market splitting into portable 7"-8" "paperback" sized devices, and 12"-13" paper/magazine/clipboard replacement devices. 10" is a dead-end IMHO. Not small enough to be toss-in-a-purse portable, not big enough to match the experience of reading a magazine. I kept a 12.1" 1400x1050 tablet PC as a secondary laptop for 7 years because the screen was just about perfect for displaying PDFs of scanned pages.


By sheh on 2/11/2012 5:05:27 PM , Rating: 2
Besides price it's also a question of powerful enough graphics hardware, and proper software support. I don't know if mainsteam OS GUIs are there yet but we have better supporting systems now for hi-DPI and hi-res displays.

I think once it becomes mainsteam enough most people would want it, and it wouldn't hurt those who aren't interested.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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