WSJ: iPad 3 with Retina Display early 2012

That would be pretty cool. I have an iPad 2 and never bought the original ipad. I wouldn't udpate to the three unless I could sell my 2 for close to $400. Wonder what they will do with the iPad 4!

Rumors.

What Sam said.

Considering this is an article from the same publication that Walt “Apple Flack” Mossberg works for gives it a little more credibility in my book.

He's been wrong before and plans change. This isn't a Moss article either.

Did you happen to noticed that I said it was the same publication? I didn't say it was a Walt article but the editor most certainly asked Walt his opinion before they went to press.

As the saying goes you and Ron are entitled to your opinions but not your own facts. Ron posts thisvas fact, which it is not. Ron's track record lately hasn't been all that great either.

Guessing that WSJ has 'cleared' a rumor article with Walt is silly and speculation to boot.

I also disagree with Rons assessment of iPad 1 vice 2, there is no comparison, even for just web browsing, and no going back. Saying that 2 wasn't a significant upgrade and a rumored 3 will be is just plain dumb IMO.

Still waiting on that iPhone Nano that the WSJ breathlessly reported on last winter.

Mad at what I wrote? Sorry if that's the case. It's the way I see it tho, there have been any number of rumors reported as stone facts here at HTF that simply didn't come true. Making purchase decisions based around rumors is always tricky, claiming that a vapor product is superior to an existing one doesn't really make sense to me. Obviously we all expect the iPad3 to be "better" but the devil is in the details.

"So, the third coming of the iPad 3 will not happen this year after all. "

That's presented as a statement of fact Ron, that's what I poo-poo, not the links to speculation. As the article itself says Apple refused to comment, as they always do. Basing predictions on suppliers is always dicey with Apple, they have been wrong so many times its not funny. Apple also rivals the soviets in their current counter-intel capabilities, it's believed that many fake stories are floated to see where they leak...

Edit: for the record I never once believed that there would be two iPad launches this year, but would be very happy to be surprised.

I don’t know Sam, I worked for a news organization for almost two years, not some blog or web page but an honest to gosh news organization that actually had people who were trained journalists. To think the editors would have used their own in house resource and asked Walt his opinion on the article is hardly silly.

That is not to say Walt has the power to kill an article or that because they printed it the article’s information is a fact. It’s not and despite your comments I have not treated it as such. I just think it has a little more weight to it then say a blog you would write or some other person on the internet that has little or no resources.

I defer to your experience, but ask you to consider these two salient points:

-Mossberg is -not- by his own definition, a journalist.
http://allthingsd.com/author/walt/#walt-ethics

-this article was written by the WSJ Asian correspondents office.

While Walt does appear to have the ears and tongues of Apple more than any other mainstream writer I personally find it hard to believe he has the swing at WSJ to kill articles that relate to Apple. Again, I'm not in the news industry but if he DID have that kind of pull I'd characterize thatas a serious lapse of ethics.

It never made sense for the iPad HD / 2 Pro / 3 to come out in 2011. Barring an unexpectedly strong showing from Android or HP or RIM, it seemed an impossible idea. And the original notion was simple noodling on the part of John Gruber.

 

As for 2012: I bet the iPad 3 will come in March or April, like the first and second iPads did, as any casual Apple observer. Now since the WSj appears to be the unofficially official mouthpiece of Apple, this might be another article "by" Apple to remind everyone that, no, really and truly, they're not doing an iPad 3 this year despite the rumor-mongering of all those online yahoos.

 

Apple's routine isn't carved in stone, as we find with the 2011 iPhone apparently launching in Fall and not Summer, but still they seem to have general habits far: one new device a year, about the same time.

I guess my son won't want to wait much longer then if iPad 3 won't likely come out til next Spring...  I'm trying to at least have him wait to see what Amazon whips up before making the jump, but haven't heard anything new on that front in some time either...

 

_Man_

 

Evolving rumors on the production of double-res screens

http://www.macrumors.com/2011/11/22/more-claims-of-a-2048x1536-resolution-ipad-3-display/

 

I wonder what the iPad 4 will do, that's the one I'll be getting!

For that one they're going retro. 320x240 screen; tinny speaker;  1200 baud modem; 68000 processor. You should get the iPad 3 ;)

I'll never get permission to buy a new iPad every year

Kudos to them if they pull this off.   The issue won't be about just how dense the screen it is; it's the processing power to move the pixels fluidly.

 

I'm wondering about cost. Will this be the new product standard, a la iPhone 4? Or is it such a leap in manufacturing difficulty that it will be a higher-priced option, with the rest of the line using the current screens? An iPad 3 Pro alongside the iPad 3?

It will definitely be a coup; there are $350 video cards on the PC & Mac side that can't get full framerate (30+) consistently accelerated.   The idea of cramming a 2k accelerated tablet.. I root for them to pull it off, it would be an amazing accomplishment.   The Macbook Air, with a much larger screen is capped at a much lower resolution (in fact, all of Apple's laptops have a lower screen resolution with more horsepower)

 

Interesting.

My four year old work laptop is driving 3360 x 1050 (dual 20" monitors) right now without a problem on a venerable WinXP system. Isn't 2D acceleration old hat, which is the bulk of iOS use? It's just about having enough RAM onboard.

 

It's 3D games that will be a problem. Apple might cheat,  giving 3D GPU acceleration at the current resolution with pixel doubling to get it on screen. Or if the next system gives another 7x increase over the current graphics system, there may be more than enough power for a 4x increase in pixel count.

 

It seems like the hardest part is screen manufacturing, not GPU.

It's 3D and Video acceleration that will be the kick in the ass.   Accelerating 2D is nothing because much of the content is stagnant.
 

 

What would the ramifications to battery life be with that kind of processing power?

 

Here's the issue.

 

An iPad2 has a total of 1024x768 or 786,432 pixels to move.

 

An iPad3 with this resolution, would have 2048*1536 or 3,145,728 pixels to move.

 

So, by default, that would require four times the GPU memory space, just for starters.   Add into that that all previous apps would have to upscale to new resolutions fluently or, older apps would have to downset the resolution - which is a more likely option.   So, let's assume the resolution is configurable and that apps can set it high or low; in a low app mode (the traditional 1024x768) battery life would be pretty darn good; in high resolution mode..

 

Also, while pixel density is a great factor, for many users it's also a non-factor; open large text is the grounds of Apple's fastest growing audience.. not kids, the elderly.   Those in the 65+ are adopting iPad like gangbusters thanks to simplicity.. but higher resolution is not as beneficial as larger and more fluid writing.   

 

And while 2048x1536 sounds hella impressive, we also have to think about real world application usage.   Apple is not going to suddenly start selling 2k resolution videos from studio; at their current weighted bandwidth (which is primarily 720P anyway) you'd be talking about moving more then 180Mb/s of raw data.. that would tax even a macpro on the I/O component, and the storage space for content would be immense.   

 

The concept of it is very cool - and maybe they will do it, but the logistics of doing it, as well as the real benefits will be interesting to see how they do it and maintain a cost and a return that are worthwhile.  People make the comparison to the iPhone4.. well, realize, the iPhone4 at retina on a 3.7" display is 600k pixels (roughly) which is less then the iPad2 NOW.   It would be almost 5X less pixels then a retina ipad.  That's a monumental leap.  And those devices when they first came out were heavily subsidized.. a WiFi iPad3 with a retina display would not be subsidized.  And unlike Amazon, Apple isn't losing money on a device to sell it.

 

I'm not saying this is impossible - it may happen, and it would be incredible and I would snag one.  But the potential drawbacks and realities of doing it are huge.

3D games is the last thing I think about regarding a new Retina Display (since I'm not playing them). After using the iPhone 4 for six months, the iPad's screen was noticeably inferior. Compared to the Kindle, the iPad is, if not worse, not better for readability. As on the iPhone, a Retina Display will improve every single app with text: Safari, Calendar, Contacts, books, magazines, Safari, the Calendar. And also games. While it might not be noticeable to those in their 60s, it will be a clear improvement to everyone else.

 

It will also be a *huge* marketing advantage over Android tablets for the next six to 18 months. (They're only now catching up with the iPhone 4's screen, 18 months later.)

 

Certainly there are technical challenges, not least of which is simply manufacturing a panel that large with that pixel density in the volumes necessary.

 

 

Apple's going to do a Retina Display for the iPad. It's only a question of when. iPad 3 in 2012 is looking better and better for it to happen.

Like I said, it's easy when you talk about the Kindle, where E-Ink has a totally different means of viewing it so the optics are different.   But in the case of an pixel-dense screen here, the jump to double resolution is a monumental one.   We'll see.   We have to remember most iPad apps are written around 1024x768.   The move up will either mean upscaling (significant performance hit) OR it will mean that the screen flips into a 1024x768 resolution mode as I noted above (a non-native resolution).   That has mixed impact also.

 

One of the bigger things here is that even 64Gb will seem paltry to sustain the resolution and cache rate.  You'll need to look at 64/96/128Gb as preferred to handle the data requirements here.

I'm not saying I'm not rooting for them to pull this off, but there are a lot of real whips and arrows in this jump that don't exist in doubling a 3.7" screen's resolution.   Then again, I'm reminded that up until the day of, MacRumors and elsewhere were posting "stats" on an iPhone5 with "sourcing" that turned out bogus (reshaped bezel! new home button! bigger screen size!)