The official iPad 3 rumors, speculation, and wants thread

[pcslookout]

All they have to do is just re-release the iPad 2. That is already destroying the competition. They sold 15M of the suckers last quarter, no one else came close to that kind of number.

You can talk all you want about having more mega-gigabytes, and a 1080p display (see Transformer Prime) and everything else, at the end of the day, the iPad is part of a very active development community that is only now beginning to truly tap into the potential of the devices with regards to UX paradigms (see Clear app).

Is there anyway to find out who they are and why they are such a active development community ? Plus what their plans are ?

 

[TheStu]

Is there anyway to find out who they are and why they are such a active development community ? Plus what their plans are ?

What?

I was talking about iOS developers being an active community, sorry if i wasn't clear.

 

[bearxor]

I'm a little late to this party but wanted to address resolution.

You guys understand that iOS is resolution independent, yes? The screen resolution could be 1024x768, 2048x1536 or 4096x3072. The interface elements will all look the same. They'll all use up the same amount of space. Your effective usable area will always be more like 1024x768. Just because there's more pixels doesn't mean everything will be smaller and less usable. Everything will LOOK the same. It will just be a lot sharper as there's now more pixels to smooth out edges and curves, etc, etc.

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe that Android is not resolution independent. This is why phones that are upping the resolution are also increasing the screen size. As the resolution goes up, the interface elements will become smaller. Not the case with iOS.

 

[BD2003]

You have it backwards. iOS is res dependent. Not strictly, but everything seemingly needs to be a direct multiple of the iPhone or iPad res.

Android is res independent, and can be any resolution.

 

[mugs]

What?

I was talking about iOS developers being an active community, sorry if i wasn't clear.

I think he's hoping Apple will accept him for a job offer.

 

[bearxor]

You have it backwards. iOS is res dependent. Not strictly, but everything seemingly needs to be a direct multiple of the iPhone or iPad res.

Android is res independent, and can be any resolution.

We're not talking about the same thing.

You're talking about the ability for a phone maker to use whatever resolution they want (within reason).

What I'm saying is that if you had two Android devices. Let's say they were identical hardware and software-wise, but they used two different screen resolutions (but the same size screen, say, 4".) one at 800x480 and the other at 1280x800. If you were to put the same interface elements running the same software, the icons/text/general UI of the 1280x800 device are going to be smaller than the interface elements on the 800x480 device.

This is very hard for me to find a picture of though. Since just about every phone has a custom built ui, the phone developers make icons and such for the phones that go with the aspect ratio and resolution of the device. I can't find two images of the same ROM on different resolution phones that have the same (or really close) screen sizes.

Now, the iPhone, OTOH, is very easy to prove. Just look at the 3GS and the 4. Same screen size. Same UI. The interface elements are exactly the same size on the screen, but since the 4 has double the pixies available, looks smoother and sharper than the 3GS. Text renders better, images render better all because of the smoothing effect.

So what I'm saying is, to address concerns earlier in this thread, that a higher resolution on the iPad 3 would't make a difference to anyone. It will still 'look' the same. It will just look a lot smoother.

But you're right in that iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad will be multiples of themselves. That's because to break away from the established aspect ratios (which work fine, honestly) would introduce fragmentation in to the ecosystem. Why make developers work on a 4:3 version of an app and then also have to include a 16:9 version? Too much work and Apple wants to make it easy.

 

[TheStu]

You have it backwards. iOS is res dependent. Not strictly, but everything seemingly needs to be a direct multiple of the iPhone or iPad res.

Android is res independent, and can be any resolution.

Strictly speaking I don't either can really be labelled as resolution independent. To be RI the interface elements need to maintain their size regardless of the resolution, that allows one to use extremely high resolution displays without all the buttons shrinking down to the size of an ant.

Apple has locked ratios that allows them semi-independence. Buttons stay the same size, but other elements can tap into the additional space. They lock in the ratios so that the common elements (buttons specifically) will still be large enough tap targets.

Android... I haven't used enough to really say, but since there are no enforced resolutions the apps have to be fluid enough to allow for anything from 480*320 up to the 1280*720 on the Galaxy Nexus. However, I think that interface elements are still resolution dependent, hence different size buttons on different devices.

 

[bearxor]

Strictly speaking I don't either can really be labelled as resolution independent. To be RI the interface elements need to maintain their size regardless of the resolution, that allows one to use extremely high resolution displays without all the buttons shrinking down to the size of an ant.

Apple has locked ratios that allows them semi-independence. Buttons stay the same size, but other elements can tap into the additional space. They lock in the ratios so that the common elements (buttons specifically) will still be large enough tap targets.

It was my understanding that, while Applications can be arranged to take advantage of the extra resolution, if they were not, the OS would automatically scale to the correct size regardless. If I'm wrong (because lord knows I DON'T know it inside and out) then I'll learn something new .

 

[BD2003]

Yeah, I guess we're talking about two different things.

 

[gevorg]

Because line out is more or less just unamped analog out. What I want is pure digital bit-to-bit out to an external DAC, or an improvement to the internal DAC. You can only do so much with amping a bad signal. The iPad is indeed capable of digital bit-to-bit out via USB to some external amps (not all of them), but thanks to Apple's anemic power draw requirements on the USB port, not a lot of amps work.

Checkout Wadia 171iTransport, I think it should be able to output digital from the iPad if you can get an Apple cable with 30pin male and 30pin female.

 

[bearxor]

Because line out is more or less just unamped analog out. What I want is pure digital bit-to-bit out to an external DAC, or an improvement to the internal DAC. You can only do so much with amping a bad signal. The iPad is indeed capable of digital bit-to-bit out via USB to some external amps (not all of them), but thanks to Apple's anemic power draw requirements on the USB port, not a lot of amps work.

I thought that the iPhone/iPad Dock had optical outs for a digital output...

 

[alfa147x]

I thought that the iPhone/iPad Dock had optical outs for a digital output...

http://www.wadia.com/products/transports/170i/

yes

 

[Aikouka]

Now, the iPhone, OTOH, is very easy to prove. Just look at the 3GS and the 4. Same screen size. Same UI. The interface elements are exactly the same size on the screen, but since the 4 has double the pixies available, looks smoother and sharper than the 3GS. Text renders better, images render better all because of the smoothing effect.

You must not remember when developers released new versions of their apps (around the iPhone 4 launch) just to include a "retina icon" since all iOS did was blow up their original image, which was designed for a smaller resolution.

All in all, you cannot magically make pixels appear out of thin air. If an image exists on the file system as 100x100, and you're trying to now display it over 200x200 pixels, you're going to have to do something to make up for the 4x more pixels. As someone else mentioned, sometimes images are provided at a larger resolution and shrunk down (proportionally), which would help since the original resolution may still be larger than what's needed to fit the increased resolution.

 

[mugs]

You must not remember when developers released new versions of their apps (around the iPhone 4 launch) just to include a "retina icon" since all iOS did was blow up their original image, which was designed for a smaller resolution.

All in all, you cannot magically make pixels appear out of thin air. If an image exists on the file system as 100x100, and you're trying to now display it over 200x200 pixels, you're going to have to do something to make up for the 4x more pixels. As someone else mentioned, sometimes images are provided at a larger resolution and shrunk down (proportionally), which would help since the original resolution may still be larger than what's needed to fit the increased resolution.

Completely missing the point of what he's saying.

It goes back to your misguided complaint about web pages taking up a very small portion of the screen at higher resolution. That won't be the case. Web pages will be the same physical size, there will just be more pixels. Fonts will be smoother, images won't have to be scaled down, etc.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

You must not remember when developers released new versions of their apps (around the iPhone 4 launch) just to include a "retina icon" since all iOS did was blow up their original image, which was designed for a smaller resolution.

All in all, you cannot magically make pixels appear out of thin air. If an image exists on the file system as 100x100, and you're trying to now display it over 200x200 pixels, you're going to have to do something to make up for the 4x more pixels. As someone else mentioned, sometimes images are provided at a larger resolution and shrunk down (proportionally), which would help since the original resolution may still be larger than what's needed to fit the increased resolution.

Let's take a 400x400 display that is a 3" square, and throw up a 400x400 image on it. Now let's double/quadruple the resolution to 800x800, still in the 3" square, and throw that same 400x400 image on it. Now each image-pixel is taking up 4 display-pixels, but that cluster of 4 display-pixels is still the same size as the single pixel of the original display, so there is no perceptible difference to the naked eye.

Throw in a bit of AA and it should look better than before, but even without it, there should be no degradation in perceived quality.

 

[gevorg]

or just use vector graphics

 

[ultimatebob]

I'm hoping that they finally make Siri available for the iPad 2.

Apple doesn't really have a good excuse for not supporting it, considering that the iPad 2 basically has the same processor and memory as the iPhone 4S.

 

[Pliablemoose]

A, digging the messaging

 

[runawayprisoner]

Most of DIY DACs can easily be modded to accommodate external power. I'll try to do that with mine at home.

If Apple would just allow more power draw out of USB port, given that the iPad 3 may have a bigger battery, an external DAC should be useable without any external power source. That's what I'm trying to get at.

Or alternatively, they could just change the DAC inside to something decent. Like a Wolfson WM8740, for instance.

Checkout Wadia 171iTransport, I think it should be able to output digital from the iPad if you can get an Apple cable with 30pin male and 30pin female.

I don't think such a cable exists... plus as far as I know, the iPad is the only device in iOS lineup that can output digital out through its 30pin connector.

 

[alfa147x]

I don't think such a cable exists... plus as far as I know, the iPad is the only device in iOS lineup that can output digital out through its 30pin connector.

http://www.wadia.com/products/transports/171i/

iPhone (1, 3G, 3GS, 4, 4S)
iTouch (1st - 4th generation)
iPod classic (80GB, 120GB, 160GB)
iPod nano (2nd - 6th generation)

Also the Onkyo ND-S1

Also this will help connect an iPad to an iPhone / iPod dock:

$5 ebay

 

[Aikouka]

It goes back to your misguided complaint about web pages taking up a very small portion of the screen at higher resolution.

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I stated, and in fact, the other posts are agreeing. To display an image of size x,y over a screen with the same physical size but a higher resolution, either you must match the pixel size and render the image visually smaller or use resizing algorithms to enlarge it to take up more pixels but retain the same visual size.

My qualms are that I think the iPad actually works rather fine right now when it comes to websites. Sure, there may be a few sites that could use a slight boost, but doubling it just seems like too much. As I mentioned, I own an iPad 2, and my overall distaste comes from using it and just simply not seeing any real benefit.

Let's take a 400x400 display that is a 3" square, and throw up a 400x400 image on it. Now let's double/quadruple the resolution to 800x800, still in the 3" square, and throw that same 400x400 image on it. Now each image-pixel is taking up 4 display-pixels, but that cluster of 4 display-pixels is still the same size as the single pixel of the original display, so there is no perceptible difference to the naked eye.

Throw in a bit of AA and it should look better than before, but even without it, there should be no degradation in perceived quality.

I agree that you can use zoom to make it just like it is now, but why would I want to spend the money on what I assume is a more expensive panel to essentially see things just like I do now? When it comes to my computer, I use larger resolutions on larger monitors as that simply makes more sense. The iPad's screen (if the rumor holds true) will not change size, which just makes it seem like a waste.

Although, I've always said that half the time it's more about the buzzwords to sell the Apple products than the actual necessity. I remember when I was standing in line to get my iPad 2, and someone was talking to me about it. Their only response was that it was "better than their iPad" and they "had to get one."

 

[BD2003]

It'll be just like IPhone 4 dude. Anything that's rendered on a system level like UI buttons and fonts is rendered at the full high resolution, even in non-updated apps. Sharper text alone is a huge benefit. Unzoomed web pages look much better. Pictures and video. A ton of apps will be updated to natively support it from day one.

The only thing that really doesn't immediately and automatically benefit are games.

 

[bearxor]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I stated, and in fact, the other posts are agreeing. To display an image of size x,y over a screen with the same physical size but a higher resolution, either you must match the pixel size and render the image visually smaller or use resizing algorithms to enlarge it to take up more pixels but retain the same visual size.

My qualms are that I think the iPad actually works rather fine right now when it comes to websites. Sure, there may be a few sites that could use a slight boost, but doubling it just seems like too much. As I mentioned, I own an iPad 2, and my overall distaste comes from using it and just simply not seeing any real benefit.

You're right. iOS "blows up" the image you see on higher resolution panels to make everything look the same. It just seems weird that you mentioned tiny web pages as a problem since I figured Apple answered the question of "how do you display stuff on the screen when you've doubled the resolution" in 2010 with the iPhone 4.

I agree that you can use zoom to make it just like it is now, but why would I want to spend the money on what I assume is a more expensive panel to essentially see things just like I do now? When it comes to my computer, I use larger resolutions on larger monitors as that simply makes more sense. The iPad's screen (if the rumor holds true) will not change size, which just makes it seem like a waste.

Because things will look better... I suppose... I mean, if you can't tell the difference in The way the screen looks between a iPhone 4 and a 3G then I don't think any amount of splanin' is going to help. Let's just say I'd really appreciate a higher pixel density on the iPad. I have a feeling the iPad 3 won't have vastly superior hardware, horsepower-wise, so an upgrade from an iPad 2 to a 3 might not be totally great for everybody.

Although, I've always said that half the time it's more about the buzzwords to sell the Apple products than the actual necessity. I remember when I was standing in line to get my iPad 2, and someone was talking to me about it. Their only response was that it was "better than their iPad" and they "had to get one."

I use crap like this sometimes if dont feel like getting in a discussion. Just a few days ago I had a few minutes to kill in the mall and right outside where I was waiting was a T-Mobile kiosk with a Lumia 700 on display. I hadn't played with one yet so I went over and started messing around with it. It old the sales person I was just looking but they kept pestering me about who I was with, what phone I was using, etc, etc. So when I said iPhone, they instantly went in to the T-Mobile 'we have great phones that beat the iPhone' sales training.

I didn't want to be bothered so I just said 'I just like it.' and tried to leave it at that. They didn't want to take it for an answer so I just had to leave. I just want to play with your damn Windows Phone for a few minutes. I don't want to get in to a discussion about ecosystems and features, blah, blah, blah...

I will say that I really like the physical buttons on the Lumia 700. I just don't dig capacitive buttons. I might be able to deal with one in the middle, but definitely not towards the edges of the sides.

 

[mugs]

There was absolutely nothing wrong with what I stated, and in fact, the other posts are agreeing.

There was.

* I ran up some numbers on a news post on DailyTech, and it came out to the DT website only being displayed on ~3.8" of the rumored iPad 3's screen when in landscape mode.

No. It will most like be the same size as it is on the iPad 2.

* however, how would it look when you have to start blowing up images to make the website more viewable? Shrinking down a website shouldn't be as huge of a problem as you're effectively hiding any image defects, but wouldn't blowing them up effectively make them worse?

No. You'd be viewing the same image on the same sized screen; the resolution is doubled, but so is the pixel density. At worst you use 4 pixels to display the exact same thing 1 pixel displayed before. More likely those 4 pixels will be slightly different shades to smooth the image. An image looks worse when you try to blow it up to a larger physical size, which isn't happening.

To display an image of size x,y over a screen with the same physical size but a higher resolution, either you must match the pixel size and render the image visually smaller or use resizing algorithms to enlarge it to take up more pixels but retain the same visual size.

They handled this exact same issue with the iPhone 4. Apple is aware of the pixel density of their retina displays. They don't treat the retina display like it's 72 dpi. Everything will look the same size (approximately), but in most cases it'll look smoother.

My qualms are that I think the iPad actually works rather fine right now when it comes to websites. Sure, there may be a few sites that could use a slight boost, but doubling it just seems like too much. As I mentioned, I own an iPad 2, and my overall distaste comes from using it and just simply not seeing any real benefit.

Honestly, the reason I never bought an iPad 2 was because I thought the resolution was too low. Then I bought my wife one, and I realized that was silly. It does a lot with that low resolution. So I understand why you think everything is fine. I thought my iPhone 3G looked fine too. When I compared it to my iPhone 4, I was blown away. The retina display IS overkill, but they double the resolution to make it easier to deal with. You know everything will look good on both screens, scaling is easier, etc. I'd definitely buy an iPad 3 if it didn't have a retina display, but I won't complain that they're adding it.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I agree that you can use zoom to make it just like it is now, but why would I want to spend the money on what I assume is a more expensive panel to essentially see things just like I do now?

Because fixed-size images are not 100% of the things that you can view on an iPad. Sure there are some things that are a fixed, relatively low resolution (such as images) but UI elements, text, etc. are all easily scalable. The GPUs can handle it.

I wish that *all* displays would move towards higher density (smaller pixels). I've got a 1680x1050 "high-res" display on my MBP, and I wish it were actually higher-res. And I think that we should be seeing 2560x1600 on 20"-24" desktop panels instead of the 1080p crap we're seemingly stuck with. 1080p is even the standard for 27" desktop monitor panels, what's up with that? Higher res just looks better, period. (Up to the limit of human vision, of course, which isn't *that* high, but definitely higher than most PC/laptop/tablet displays.)