• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Let's speculate about the next iPad.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
For someone with 20/20 vision, a 9.7" Retina iPad can be considered Retina by Apple's definition at any distance greater than 13".

It's been said that the optimal distance for an iPad is 15" - 18" or greater.

I suppose one situation where people would consistently hold it closer is if they're near-sighted, and don't wear their glasses, but that's an exception.

Going to a significantly higher (3X) resolution would help outliers, but it wouldn't help Apple's bottom line in any way, and for the mainstream market, it would in fact be pointless (pun intended).
 
Last edited:
Eug said:
For someone with 20/20 vision, a 9.7" Retina iPad can be considered Retina by Apple's definition at any distance greater than 13".

It's been said that the optimal distance for an iPad is 15" - 18" or greater.

I suppose one situation where people would consistently hold it closer is if they're near-sighted, and don't wear their glasses, but that's an exception.

Going to a significantly higher (3X) resolution would help outliers, but it wouldn't help Apple's bottom line in any way, and for the mainstream market, it would in fact be pointless (pun intended).
Click to expand...
But 20/20 vision isn't great. It's average. There's bound to be plenty of people with better vision.

That may be the optimal distance, but everyone's going to hold it at a different distance depending on their preferences, where they are, and what they're doing with it.

Also you may not be able to see the subpixels, but I'd guarantee you that you could spot one red pixel on a white background. Until you can't I still think there's room for improvement. Of course that needs to be weighed against the negatives of increasing pixel density (brightness, power consumption, cost, etc.)
 
Eug said:
The one key factor missing from above is the amount of RAM. That crucial factor will determine if I buy or not.
Click to expand...
Don't expect more RAM on the Mini or Air. I think Apple has made it clear 1GB is enough.

If they release a larger iPad "Pro" model, a bump in screen size/resolution might warrant an increase in memory.

I also have this hunch...maybe the larger 12" iPad isn't an iPad at all, but Apple's first OS convergence device. It's a 12" convertible Broadwell tablet/laptop, running MacOS and iOS. Have it replace the entire MacBook Air lineup, and if anyone wants a larger screen they'll step up to a MBP (which will probably be as thin as the current Air once they stuff Broadwell inside it). The clamshell design of the current MBA lends itself to be easily changed to a convertible format.
 
Last edited:
Steelbom said:
But 20/20 vision isn't great. It's average. There's bound to be plenty of people with better vision.

That may be the optimal distance, but everyone's going to hold it at a different distance depending on their preferences, where they are, and what they're doing with it.

Also you may not be able to see the subpixels, but I'd guarantee you that you could spot one red pixel on a white background. Until you can't I still think there's room for improvement. Of course that needs to be weighed against the negatives of increasing pixel density (brightness, power consumption, cost, etc.)
Click to expand...

Apple already compensates for this, as their chosen pixel densities are higher than their definitions of Retina. As mentioned, optimal for the iPad is 15-18 inches, but the pixel density supports as close as 13 inches.

Basically, what you've argued are occasional outlier cases. Apple isn't designing these things for the outlier. You've provided no convincing reason as to why Apple would release a 3X 9.7" iPad anytime soon.

The only place where I see this maybe making sense is an as-yet unreleased 12" iPad.
 
Eug said:
Apple already compensates for this, as their chosen pixel densities are higher than their definitions of Retina. As mentioned, optimal for the iPad is 15-18 inches, but the pixel density supports as close as 13 inches.

Basically, what you've argued are occasional outlier cases. Apple isn't designing these things for the outlier. You've provided no convincing reason as to why Apple would release a 3X 9.7" iPad anytime soon.

The only place where I see this maybe making sense is an as-yet unreleased 12" iPad.
Click to expand...
My argument is solely that it will be an improvement visually. From what you write, I take it you don't believe that anyone with 20/20 vision will notice the difference. However, 20/20 vision isn't good vision. It's okay. Everyone has a highly varied visual acuity, and everyone holds their devices different distances from them, and that can change depending on what they're doing with it. So relying solely on the "optimal viewing distance", isn't enough as far as I'm concerned.

I would be surprised if they used said resolution on a 12 inch iPad, as it would just make content bigger. Apple has already demonstrated they get that a bigger screen should have more workspace, so I'd expect they'd choose a new resolution.
 
Steelbom said:
My argument is solely that it will be an improvement visually. From what you write, I take it you don't believe that anyone with 20/20 vision will notice the difference. However, 20/20 vision isn't good vision. It's okay. Everyone has a highly varied visual acuity, and everyone holds their devices different distances from them, and that can change depending on what they're doing with it. So relying solely on the "optimal viewing distance", isn't enough as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
But that's a different argument. You originally said Apple will be moving to a ~400 ppi iPad. That is what I take issue with. It's one thing to say you wish they would do it, and a totally different thing to say they will do it.
 
Eug said:
But that's a different argument. You originally said Apple will be moving to a ~400 ppi iPad. That is what I take issue with. It's one thing to say you wish they would do it, and a totally different thing to say they will do it.
Click to expand...
Oh, no I'm still convinced they will do it. And the reason why is because, as I said, I believe there's a substantial visual improvement to be had.

But, again, it's not going to happen if they have to sacrifice battery life, brightness, or GPU performance. So it may take a few generations.

I guess time will tell.
 
Steelbom said:
My argument is solely that it will be an improvement visually. From what you write, I take it you don't believe that anyone with 20/20 vision will notice the difference. However, 20/20 vision isn't good vision. It's okay. Everyone has a highly varied visual acuity, and everyone holds their devices different distances from them, and that can change depending on what they're doing with it. So relying solely on the "optimal viewing distance", isn't enough as far as I'm concerned.

I would be surprised if they used said resolution on a 12 inch iPad, as it would just make content bigger. Apple has already demonstrated they get that a bigger screen should have more workspace, so I'd expect they'd choose a new resolution.
Click to expand...
what? 20/20 vision is considered good vision.

I'm pretty sure that most adults do not have 20/20 vision without corrective lenses. It's actually kinda sad IMO how many teenagers need to wear eyeglasses nowadays, and they hardly even read books. 😀
 
manly said:
what? 20/20 vision is considered good vision.

I'm pretty sure that most adults do not have 20/20 vision without corrective lenses. It's actually kinda sad IMO how many teenagers need to wear eyeglasses nowadays, and they hardly even read books. 😀
Click to expand...
But it isn't good vision imo. It's okay, but not particularly good -- 20/15 I suppose is good, and 20/10 is great. (When I say not good, I don't mean they can't see properly -- it's just average.)

I've been wearing glasses since I was 16 haha, so much PC time 😱
 
For visual acuity, 20/16 is already extremely good, and 20/10 is exceptional and rare.

Admittedly, with 20/10 vision, very high pixel density can improve detail, but like I said, 20/10 is pretty rare. Apple's chosen pixel 326 ppi density on Apple phones, particularly the iPhone 6 is decent, probably good enough for most usage cases up to around 20/18 or even 20/16, and is higher than necessary for 20/20 vision.

For a 9.7" tablet, that pixel density needed is significantly lower than 300 ppi, even for 20/16 vision.

Targeting the outliers with 20/10 vision makes no real sense for a consumer product. It just adds unneeded expense, unneeded GPU requirements, and unneeded battery requirements, at least for 2014.

---

BTW, there is a sketchy rumour making the rounds today about 12.9" maxiPad, sporting an A8X.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/14...beefed-up-a8x-chip-ipad-air-2-to-gain-2gb-ram
 
Last edited:
I agree ApplePay on the iPad seems rather silly. Although, it is a great feature on phones; at least, from a security standpoint. I'd love to not have to expose my CC information to idiot companies like Target and Home Depot.
 
Hmm... so would anyone here go with a larger iPad over the current size? Personally, I think the current iPad is a nice size, and apart from the PC-ish tablets (e.g. Microsoft's Surface Pro), you don't see many tablets that break away from the 10" mold. Do people really want these larger tablets? When it comes to portable devices like laptops, I've actually been looking at smaller devices. My eye is currently set on Alienware's upcoming Alienware 13 as I like the proposed power and theoretical cooling (too many small laptops have paltry cooling and run really hot and/or loud).

smackababy said:
I agree ApplePay on the iPad seems rather silly. Although, it is a great feature on phones; at least, from a security standpoint. I'd love to not have to expose my CC information to idiot companies like Target and Home Depot.
Click to expand...

I wonder if they wanted to add Apple Pay, which should be fairly negligible to add (apart from the GUI elements), because the iPad may also support the Apple Watch. It seems like the watch can only support Apple Pay through a complementary iDevice, which means you'd need an iPad or iPhone that supports Apple Pay.
 
I would probably buy a 10" over a 12-13". I want a 12" light laptop. I might consider a true 12" hybrid though.

My friend would buy a 12-13" iPad in a heartbeat, but he used it for content creation with his iMac.
 
Has anyone used a surface and can give a comparison to an iPad. I have a Surface 2 and it's alright but I don't use it a ton. The aspect ratio is awful for reading in portrait and there's not a lot to do with it otherwise.

How does the iPad compare. If I can't find a real use for my surface could I find one for an iPad?
 
I've used what was originally referred to as the Microsoft Surface. The table thing. And it was pretty crappy.

Can't comment on the tablets though. =(
 
I just don't know how Apple will keep the iPad relevant. A few mm thinner, a finger unlock, better cameras, and such won't motivate the mainstream to pick up a new one every 2 years. I'm still using my iPad 3 and its plenty for surfing the net.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top