Why does the ipad 3 have better resolution than even $600 monitors ?

[Silent_Buddha]

The HDTV market doesn't drive down prices for tablet or notebook panels. But that's where high PPI is likely to become widespread first, which will lead to increased user expectations as well as improved manufacturing processes. That in turn enables high PPI panels >20" to become affordable.

It's certainly possible, but highly unlikely, IMO. We've had higher PPI displays in notebook computers for nearly a decade now. That hasn't translated to the desktop space at all.

We've had OLED displays in mobile devices for well over 5 years now. Again, that hasn't translated to the desktop. Some things are just far easier and far more cost effective to make at smaller sizes with increasingly difficult problems to overcome when trying to translate it into larger devices.

There's lots of things that work well for the mobile space but don't translate to the desktop space. Personally I hope high PPI displays makes that transition. But I'm certainly not expecting it to happen anytime soon and when it does, I'm fully expecting adoption to be quite slow.

Regards,
SB

 

[Xmas]

It's certainly possible, but highly unlikely, IMO. We've had higher PPI displays in notebook computers for nearly a decade now. That hasn't translated to the desktop space at all.

We've had OLED displays in mobile devices for well over 5 years now. Again, that hasn't translated to the desktop. Some things are just far easier and far more cost effective to make at smaller sizes with increasingly difficult problems to overcome when trying to translate it into larger devices.

Yes, there are of course technical issues that need to be overcome. Not just manufacturing, but also in terms of connector and software support. I think those pieces are falling into place now and we're close to a point where mass marked adoption is becoming a possibility.

OLED's a different story, though, as ramping up OLED production capacity requires much more time and investment than upgrading existing LCD facilities.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

Here's also something to consider.

In the notebook space. When consumers are faced with a choice between a laptop with X specs for Y dollars and an exactly same laptop with X specs except with a higher PPI display for Y+Z dollars, the vast majority of them went with the notebook with a lower PPI display.

I wonder what would the situation have been like if there was an option to buy the new iPad without the high PPI display for 100-200 USD less. I'm willing to bet that would sell far more units than the high PPI display.

The reason it's so popular is that it's the only display available for anyone that wants a new model iPad.

That's going to be the situation we have when/if high PPI displays are introduced to the computer market. People will still buy them (people buy 2560x1600 and 2560x1440 displays after all), but without another market to drive down the price, people are going to opt for the cheaper lower PPI monitors.

Perhaps I'm being too cynical, but past history tends to back up what I've been saying.

Regards,
SB

 

[RobertR1]

Coming from a touchpad, ipad3 is downright awesome. The screen turly is worth the hype. Hard to get more "crisp" than this. The colors and quality is also top notch. For $500, this really puts other manufactures on the back foot.

 

[Grall]

I wonder what would the situation have been like if there was an option to buy the new iPad without the high PPI display for 100-200 USD less. I'm willing to bet that would sell far more units than the high PPI display.

The reason it's so popular is that it's the only display available for anyone that wants a new model iPad.

I think the lesson you're looking for is that cheaper = sells more. Not that less dpi = sells more. ...And since less dpi = cheaper, you jump to the wrong conclusion.

So since you want a cheaper, less-DPI ipad3, you and all those people you talk about should therefore go buy an ipad 2, because that's what you want. ipad 3 IS the retina display. That's the whole point of the device. Not wanting a retina display in your ipad 3 is like saying you want chocolate cake, except without the chocolate.

The retina display is like one of those things that in some ways you may not really notice unless pointed out to you, but in other ways you don't really notice it when you have it, but you DO notice it when you don't have it. It's an ethereal quality, it's not really something that jumps out and screams HEY HEY LOOKATME!, you know?

Have you tried an ipad3 yet? I've used one for just a few minutes, and the display is really quite something to behold.

 

[Sxotty]

Can you read it in the sun yet? If not the display is crap.

 

[Xmas]

In the notebook space. When consumers are faced with a choice between a laptop with X specs for Y dollars and an exactly same laptop with X specs except with a higher PPI display for Y+Z dollars, the vast majority of them went with the notebook with a lower PPI display.

I wonder what would the situation have been like if there was an option to buy the new iPad without the high PPI display for 100-200 USD less. I'm willing to bet that would sell far more units than the high PPI display.

The reason it's so popular is that it's the only display available for anyone that wants a new model iPad.

But there's a reason why it's the only display available with the new model. It is the main selling point of the new iPad. If the price difference was several hundred dollars, then a cheaper model with a lower-res screen might sell better. But such a difference seems unrealistic given that the iPad 2 sells for just $100 less and the new iPad has improvements beyond the screen.

Apple is selling tens of millions of iPads, their suppliers don't need another market to bring costs down.

 

[Silent_Buddha]

I think the lesson you're looking for is that cheaper = sells more. Not that less dpi = sells more. ...And since less dpi = cheaper, you jump to the wrong conclusion.

So since you want a cheaper, less-DPI ipad3, you and all those people you talk about should therefore go buy an ipad 2, because that's what you want. ipad 3 IS the retina display. That's the whole point of the device. Not wanting a retina display in your ipad 3 is like saying you want chocolate cake, except without the chocolate.

The retina display is like one of those things that in some ways you may not really notice unless pointed out to you, but in other ways you don't really notice it when you have it, but you DO notice it when you don't have it. It's an ethereal quality, it's not really something that jumps out and screams HEY HEY LOOKATME!, you know?

Have you tried an ipad3 yet? I've used one for just a few minutes, and the display is really quite something to behold.

No, the conclusion I drew is exactly the one I made. You cannot seperate out one thing and then say such a thing will be a grand success.

Obviously a low PPI display will, in general, be cheaper to manufacture. Hence, lower PPI displays will be cheaper and people will be more willing to pay for one. With more people willing to buy one the cost can then futher be decreased, leading to even more cost savings over a high PPI display.

So we've come full circle. BTW - I'm not even remotely interested in an iPad, whether it's the new one or old one. This whole discussion offshoot has been about the viability of high PPI displays supplanting the current PPI displays in the computer market.

Hence, people point to how popular the new iPad is with its retina display.

But if you go to your average Joe Schmoe consumer buying an iPad, are they buying the new iPad because of the display or are they buying it because it's the newest iPad?

The more technically oriented people are obviously drawn to the display. If there's anything that could make me want to buy an iPad, it's certainly the display that the new one has.

But I'd argue that if the new iPad had been offered with a lower PPI display and hence been cheaper with longer battery life or less weight (smaller battery) in addition to the current one with the high PPI display, the low PPI iPad would have sold far more units than the iPad with the high PPI display.

It doesn't even matter if the new iPad was exactly the same as the old iPad except for the display. Your average consumer would still buy the new iPad just because it's the new iPad.

Hence, people using the new iPad as an indicator of future wide adoption in the computer space are looking at a very fundamentally flawed example of consumer demand.

Your average consumer has shown that presented with a choice between a high PPI display and a low PPI display, they'll generally go with the lower PPI display as it is generally cheaper. That's how it has been in the notebook/laptop space for well over half a decade now. So no surprises there.

I see no indications that things will drastically change in the computer display market to change that, unless we see the influence of HDTV making a certain resolution cheap and affordable to manufacture as we did with 1080p.

Regards,
SB

 

[pcchen]

But I'd argue that if the new iPad had been offered with a lower PPI display and hence been cheaper with longer battery life or less weight (smaller battery) in addition to the current one with the high PPI display, the low PPI iPad would have sold far more units than the iPad with the high PPI display.

IMHO the only notable feature of the new iPad compared to the iPad 2, other than the new display, is probably the camera. Their CPU is largely the same (same frequency, some number of cores), GPU is doubled but that's for the new display. The new iPad has worse battery life, and is also warmer. Considering that the new iPad 2 is US$100 cheaper and with potentially longer battery life (with the new 32nm SoC), I think we already have your hypothetical "cheaper" new iPad.

Of course, the psychological effect of owning the latest toy can't be ignored, but at least we already know that at least 3 million new iPad has been sold. I think we'll get breakdowns of sales numbers a few weeks later from the Apple's quarterly report, and we'll know how many people are willing to forfeit the high PPI display (and better camera) for US$100.

 

[hoho]

Don't forget that it's also heavier.
When I first tried using ipad2 I was really surprised how heavy it actually is. I'm used to my kindle and it felt like a brick compared to that.

 

[french toast]

Im still peddling the view that the best tech has to start somewhere, 9times out of ten on the high end devices...for instance...LCD consumer flat screen displays, then when the bugs are learned to an extent, that another midrange consumer company takes it up and tries to make it more wide spread (cheaper) thus the manufacturing gets cheaper..and the circle continues...

This happens all the time in tech...however this hasn't happend in PPI for high end consumer TV's...and too be honest i can't understand why....
Peerhaps marketing wise once you have got to 'full HD' how can you then convince consumers that there is another higher 'super duper HD'??...

1080p has been around long enough, and panel prices have become cheap enough that higher resoltions can be done... people are willing to pay for the premium..as already mentioned, ipad 3 offers no real benefits to consumers other than screen(LTE)..take that away and the gubbins to make it run like ipad 2 and you have..er..ipad 2!

Admittedly tv's havn't got the same cult appeal of a gadget...but there are enthusiasts who would snap up a £3000 screen with 2 x 1080p res....Hell we are going to be getting oled soon...it doesn't get more high end than that!

 

[eastmen]

I'm hoping for wider aspects with tvs and pc displays along with the higher resolutions .

 

[rendezvous]

I found this link http://liliputing.com/2012/04/intel-retina-laptop-desktop-displays-coming-in-2013.html (via http://www.sweclockers.com/nyhet/15...pplosning-punkttathet-i-framtida-datorskarmar) about Intel's views on pixel density of displays the coming years.

Phones and media players with 5 inch, 1280 x 800 pixel displays (this is already happening)
Tablets with 10 inch, 2560 x 1440 pixel displays
Ultrabooks with 11 inch, 2560 x 1440 pixel displays
Ultrabooks with 13 inch, 2800 x 1800 pixel displays
Laptops with 15 inch, 3840 x 2160 pixel displays
All-in-one desktops with 3840 x 2160 pixel displays

Original article comes with pretty pictures as well.

 

[Grall]

Yeah, that article did the rounds on Swedish tech sites the other day. Intel seems to want to settle on 16:9 ratio for tablets, which is IMO rather stupid. It's not a ratio suitable for tablets. It may look impressive, especially when coupled with a rich, colorful panoramic background image, but for basically anything except watching Hollywood movies it's crap. It's too narrow to show a standard page in vertical orientation, and too low for two pages in horizontal. Reading and websurfing suffers badly, and those are two of the main purposes for a tablet.

4:3 is a much more suitable aspect, as sad as that may be to admit.

 

[pcchen]

Sharp announced that it's starting to manufacture new high DPI IGZO LCD panels, including 10" 2560x1600 (300 dpi) panels for notebooks, 7" 800x1280 (217 dpi) for tablets, and 32" 3840x2160 (140 dpi) for TV.

Sharp PR via PC Watch

 

[hoho]

Please make that TV have decent panel and refresh speed so I can use it as monitor

 

[pcchen]

There were rumors about iPad 3 using Sharp's IGZO display because it's more power efficient. However, Sharp apparently couldn't meet Apple's requirement (probably production ramping issues) so iPad 3 has to be thicker, warmer, and heavier. There are still people hoping to see an iPad 3 with Sharp's panel... That'll be interesting. However, with today's announcement it seems to be less likely to happen (although it's still possible that Sharp is making it but just chose, or requested by Apple, no to announce it).

 

[Arwin]

Finally got a good look at the iPad 3, and I do want it. However, the demo setup was really crappy - the iPad 3s constantly ran out of juice. Not even because they were lifted or not connected well or anything like that. According to the guy in the store, it was because there's some kind of protection system that uses up a lot more battery.

However, googling shows that this is a more serious issue. I found this:

As to iPad charging while in use even if plugged into the Wall, Consumer Reports verified yesterday that the new iPad does NOT charge while being used. I'm sure this has to do with the redesigned battery.

To me, that's pretty much unacceptable. What the hell? They better fix this thing, because this thing went from likely short term purchase and recommended to all that want a tablet to no sale, because the full recharge time is pretty long as well (4-6 hours?). I hope they can fix this with a firmware update (was it a last minute effort to keep it from overheating?) or they can put out a better charger.

And also, doing anything with WiFi seems to drain the battery a lot faster, can't really believe that will last 9 hours to be honest, but who knows.

Damn it - I'm trying to convince myself to get one of these (really want to), and this is not helping.

EDIT: apparently if you turn back the brightness, it can recharge some ... full brightness just eats up too much power?

 

[pcchen]

Since iPad 3 has a 42.5Wh battery, that means it takes almost 5W if the 9 hours battery life is to be believed. Unfortunately, the original USB based charger is roughly 5W, and that's why it's not charging at all when under use.

I think it's a mistake though. The wall charger should be more powerful.

 

[Arwin]

Since iPad 3 has a 42.5Wh battery, that means it takes almost 5W if the 9 hours battery life is to be believed. Unfortunately, the original USB based charger is roughly 5W, and that's why it's not charging at all when under use.

I think it's a mistake though. The wall charger should be more powerful.

I just read that the iPad 3 wall charger is 10W, and that this gives better results. You still need to have brightness at 50% max to notice a charge though, and even on this wall charger it can take 6 hours to fully charge. So yeah, it definitely needs a stronger charger. Of course, I don't know what kind of heat issues that would give.