Print 112 comment(s) - last by Cheesew1z69.. on Oct 24 at 6:49 PM

Google is looking to one-up that iPad's Retina display

Apple may be looking to crush the competition's hopes of taking over the 7" tablet market with its upcoming iPad Mini, but Google is looking to grab a few headlines of its own on Monday, October 29.
According to The Next Web, Google will officially unveil a 32GB version of its popular Nexus 7 tablet. The device has already turned up in stores across the U.S. and some lucky people have even been able to purchase the device, which is priced at $249 (the same price as the previous 16GB model). In addition, there will also be another 32GB Nexus 7 that will feature 3G connectivity. This device will most likely be aimed right at Amazon's 8.9" Kindle Fire HD LTE 4G (say that three times fast).

The star of the show, however, will be Google's new 10" tablet that was developed in conjunction with Samsung. This tablet will come bearing Android 4.2 (still operating under the Jelly Bean codename) and a Retina-surpassing resolution of 2560x1600 (300 ppi). Apple's "New iPad" features a screen resolution of 2048x1536 (264 ppi).
The device will likely be called the Nexus 10. We don't have any specs to report on at this time other than the screen, but we can only assume that it'll be packing a quad-core processor and at least 64GB of storage space at the high-end.

Source: The Next Web

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: That's great and all, but...
By StevoLincolnite on 10/22/2012 7:33:17 AM , Rating: 2
I would love a 24" screen (Or 3) with double that Resolution... WHY hasn't it happened yet!? Obviously the Technology is readily available.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By mcnabney on 10/22/2012 10:29:30 AM , Rating: 2
4K displays have been out for over a decade.

The industry just wants to milk every generation for as long as it can.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By MastermindX on 10/22/2012 12:37:24 PM , Rating: 2
I don't think it's a matter of milking customers. It's more a matter of "mass produceability".

It's like for processors... IBM produced transistors working at frequencies superior to 10 gHz like what... 15 years ago? That was for single, stand alone transistors. Yet, 15 years later, the fastest processors runs at what? 3.5 gHz, give or take.

Even though they can build a single transistor that operates at 10+ gHz, they can't cram 1 billions of them in a chip smaller than your thumb's fingernail, that are stable at 10 gHz and don't overheat.

I'm not saying planned obsolescence is not a reality. It does exists. But the main reason of the slow progress in many areas is usually more a question of manufacturing process lagging behind.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By retrospooty on 10/22/2012 3:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Yup... Its one thing to make a breakthrough prototype or extremely high end product. Its totally another to be able to mass produce it and have it be affordable by the average consumer. The company that can do the latter is the one that makes money.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By zephyrprime on 10/23/2012 11:22:50 AM , Rating: 2
Not in this case. Mass production high res lcd has been available for a some years now. There just hasn't been any market demand for it. But there hasn't been any market demand for it because consumers are uneducated about the product. I remember reading the ceo of viewsonic answering some dudes question regarding high res screens a few years ago and his answer was there just wasn't any demand. This is a market where most people buy the cheapest 22" LCD they can get. 22" is still the most commonly sold lcd size. It takes a luxury goods maker like Apple (who has a strong brand, strong marketing, and a large herd of deep pocketed sheep) introducing an advanced feature as a premium feature on a high price point product for said feature to become popularized. The computer market is becoming like the car market where high end manufacturers spearhead the adoption of innovations like they did with disc brakes and fuel injection long ago.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By someguy123 on 10/22/2012 5:38:14 PM , Rating: 2
Where did this insane conspiracy come from anyway? Why are people on a PPI bandwagon these days?

Try actually running gpu demanding (or even a web browser) software on something like a T220 back when it was released. Hell if 4k became the standard on desktop PCs right at this moment I'm sure we'd see endless complaints from people trying to play video games at 4K, who will inevitably point the finger at developers for not "optimizing" enough on a 8 million pixel screen.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By icrf on 10/23/2012 12:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Higher PPI means more clarity (to a point, as Apple's "retina" marketing makes clear). Yes, current commodity hardware is lacking to do realtime 3D rendering or video decoding at resolutions that high, but the vast majority of what people stare at on their phones, tablets, laptops, and desktops is text, not movies or games. We have plenty computing power to drive extremely high resolution text.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By someguy123 on 10/23/2012 6:07:26 PM , Rating: 2
Significantly higher density means more clarity better text rendering, but the difference is greatly exaggerated, with the exception of moving from very low density for phones to the current standard of around 200ppi or so. At that point pixel edges become significantly less clear and you get decent text rendering.

Having a relatively low PPI standard is not arbitrary. try running apple's macbook retina and watch as it struggles to even browse youtube, dropping to 15~30fps frequently. that macbook actually has superior hardware to the "average" computer spent staring at text and charts. It's going to be a long time before your average computer has something comparable to an i7. The response times would also likely be worse overall considering more pixels for the panel to handle. We started seeing HD adoption in the late 90s for broadcast and nowadays hardware is still mostly just good enough for 1080p.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By FormulaRedline on 10/22/2012 10:59:08 AM , Rating: 2
I'm with you on wanting the higher res monitors, but there's a couple of issues here. First is likely the yield, or the amount of screens you can actually use out of the screens you attempt to make (i.e. all the elements are mechanically aligned, all electrical connections are sound, no dead pixels, etc).

If you have a screen with 4x the number of pixels as your old screen, it also about 4x as likely to fail. Imagine you have a 99% yield for the original screen (or 1% failure). If you simplify the equation and say that all you have to to do is make 4 screens and these will magically join together, then the chance any large screen will be good is 99% to the fourth power. So 99%^4 is approximately 96%, or a 4% failure rate. Not only have you quadrupled your failure rate, but you've quadrupled the amount of materials lost when you do fail. This makes increasing resolution exponential more difficult and expensive.

That being said, the industry is obviously making progress and we'll get there eventually.

Second, even if you were willing to pay the high prices that low yield would currently drive, you still don't have any easy way to drive the display. Current cabling standards don't have the bandwidth. Though this is again not really a technological limitation. We can obviously do it...we just need a standard so people can manufacture the new cables.

In other words, it's a commercial issue rather than a technological one, but advancements in manufacturing technology would help drive the prices down and make it more commercially viable. While you and I would pay for these displays today, the potential market will have to expand past us early adopters to make it a profitable decision.

Kudos to Apple and Google for working with the display manufacturers to help drive the market toward this end!

RE: That's great and all, but...
By zephyrprime on 10/23/2012 12:21:33 PM , Rating: 2
Failure rate increases with res but current manufacturing is god enough to handle higher res screen on small computer monitor sized displays. The failure rate for a high res 22-30" lcd is going to be much less than the failure rate of a 60" HD tv. Panel size matters a lot more for failure than screen res.

RE: That's great and all, but...
By Moishe on 10/23/2012 11:31:07 AM , Rating: 1
It is fairly annoying that screens are 1920x1080 until you get to the 30".

1080 is reasonable about up to 20". Now we have cheap 23", 24", and 27" screens, but if you want a decent resolution, the cost triples.

“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki