Well, Apple is apparently investing billions in some component, which could be high-res screens. But even if it isn't, it seems unlikely that Apple will again wait until everyone else has much higher resolution screens.
Implications of SGX543 in iPhone/Pod/Pad?
- Thread starter Entropy
- Start date
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Truth be told, everyone has lower resolution screens right now, as 1024*600 seems to be the norm for all Android 10" or high-end 7" tablets.
I'm not saying they won't ever increase the resolution for iPads.
But having a 10" 326ppi screen is a non-justified waste..
Anything over 1600*1200 on that screen would be a waste of fill-rate.
Uhmm for a ~10" screen I find either 1024*768 or 1024*600 way too low. I don't recall what all the recent 10" tablets in terms of resolution have, but I recall the Asus Eee Pad Transformer to have a 1280x800 resolution.
If it's for non3D only, I don't see why. Considering a MP2 has 4 TMUs I'd consider anything below 1080p a waste of that very same fill-rate; ok a 4:3 aspect ratio for something comparable.
If it's for non3D only, I don't see why. Considering a MP2 has 4 TMUs I'd consider anything below 1080p a waste of that very same fill-rate; ok a 4:3 aspect ratio for something comparable.
Right now, yes. But 1024x600 at 7" is already 30% more ppi than the iPad, and several Honeycomb tablets with 1280x800 have been announced for this spring. I'd hardly be surprised if we saw something like 1680x1050 before the end of the year. I wouldn't bet on a higher resolution in iPad 2, but by the time the third generation is expected 1024x768 will look dated.
205 ppi may be sufficient to hide the pixels from a user with average eyesight holding the device at an average viewing distance. But if you have better than average vision, or at least occasionally use the device closer than ~15-18" there is still room for improvement.
326 ppi on the iPhone may be considered overkill, but at least it's enough for pretty much every situation and effectively gives you resolution independence. And doubling the previous resolution was the easiest migration path. I'd expect Apple to follow that path again for the iPad, regardless of when they decide to bump the resolution.
Apple doesn't design products to hit a price target. They design what they believe are desirable products and cost is secondary. I don't know that Apple will jump to a screen with iPhone like pixel density as cost does matter at some point, but the iPad would really benefit from a higher resolution screen. I'd be shocked if Apple hasn't considered a range of screen options.
And I bet the EU would make fluffier bills if they could collect them from the sewage plant. Think of it as a tax on the rich.
Cost is secondary?
They have the highest margins in the computer business. Probably the highest of the smart phone companies too.
They achieve lower costs through scale -- using A4 across 3 different product lines. Could they ramp up a high DPI display in high enough volume this year or next?
They have the highest margins in the computer business. Probably the highest of the smart phone companies too.
They achieve lower costs through scale -- using A4 across 3 different product lines. Could they ramp up a high DPI display in high enough volume this year or next?
A4 wasn't any fundamental departure compared to their former SoC in the iPhone3GS. The latter wasn't exactly small as a SoC under 65nm, but any increased cost on that one was probably absorbed with the A4.
The point with the display for the next iPad is definitely interesting. 1024 sounds too low and the formerly rumored 2048 way too high. However their target resolution for the next iPad display cannot be lower than that of any already announced competing solution, which makes me think that 1024 is out of the question. A resolution that is at least equal or higher than that of the competition makes more sense at this point and sounds like a one way street.
"A5" or whatever its called sounds like it'll be larger than the SoC in 3GS (assuming A5 is on 45nm) and the recent rumors suggesting that Apple has placed larger wafer orders at Samsung could suggest in that direction. If true no one will easily know the aspects of that contract, but a higher volume could also mean reduced prices. Anyway I'd say that one aspect to watch in the less foreseeable future would be what Apple will dish out after the "A5".
Last but not least when competition heats up no company and no Apple can always reach the same impressive profits. In order to stay competitive you have to make a couple of sacrifices too. That notion that Apple continuously stays on the conservative hw side of things to maximize profits needs to die. Firms that don't adjust to market trends and try to stay on top of the competition at all times will inevitably get into trouble. And no the "apple" on the device won't save them either. At least IMO.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Do you honestly believe that? Have you ever seen an Apple keynote?
Half their speech is about price points.
While I project that the A6 will be an extension of the A5 as with Apple's previous two-year iOS device cycles -- using a similar GPU and CPU yet with enhancements and faster clocks, -- the multi-processor approach makes dropping in extra cores actually possible.
Either way, phones won't totally eclipse the performance of a target like NGP until the A7 iOS devices arrive, but the gap they open at that release will be quite sizable.
Either way, phones won't totally eclipse the performance of a target like NGP until the A7 iOS devices arrive, but the gap they open at that release will be quite sizable.
Cost is indeed secondary to Apple. Price is not. Fair enough?
If they want to do something crazy like a 2K display (and I have zero info on whether they do), then they can always divide the iPad in two SKUs or simply keep selling the old model at a lower price.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Cost is indeed secondary to Apple. Price is not. Fair enough
I can accept that.
Apple fragmenting their precious once-a-year product lines with something other than storage and\or wireless connectivity??!
Heresy!
huh ?...they have history of doing exactly as Arun suggests, specifically continuing to sell 3GS since the launch of iphone4. I don't think it was solely to allow in-channel inventory to be exhausted.
They do it with iPhone, still selling the previous year's model at a lower price point. But I suspect sales of the 3GS after the iPhone 4 came out plummeted, despite the lower entry price.
The big cost of the phone was in the contract so saving $100 upfront is relatively insignificant.
iPad doesn't require a data contract (which could give it an advantage against other tablets, which so far seem to require contracts) so cutting the price on the older SKUs will result in significant savings.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
If you look at how I bolded Arun's comment, you'll notice I was talking about further fragmentation in new products.
As you say, Apple have a history of launching multiple versions of a product ( Storage, colour, wifi only/wifi+GSM), is it such a leap to imagine standard screen/"retina" screen, with perhaps the "retina" screen only being available on the top storage/connectivity version to reduce the fragmentation options, at a hefty price premium. Might be a nice way of launching a high end screen, getting useful extra revenue for it, and paving the way for the elimination of the "low res" screen.
Whereby fragmentation is so vague as a term that it can take several interpretations/perspectives. There's fragmentation in A4 too for all of the products it supplies.
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Erm.. don't even know what to say..
Sorry for using a vague term?
Sorry for using a vague term?
For what its worth, the guys and gals at 9to5mac have gotten ahold of what they believe to be an iPad 2 screen.
Can't figure out why they haven't fired it up yet.
It appears to just be an LG LP097X02 panel, going from the photo which is just a glossy LED 9,7" 1024 x 768 display.
Can't figure out why they haven't fired it up yet.
It appears to just be an LG LP097X02 panel, going from the photo which is just a glossy LED 9,7" 1024 x 768 display.
Last edited by a moderator:
