Asus did 1080p (1920x1080). Apple is doing 2048x1536 (if we believe the rumors) which is in a completely different league. I'm not arguing about the quad-core though ;)
AR - description 1.29 - 8.5"x11" letter-sized sheet of paper (13.9" diagonal) 1.33 - 4:3 e.g. 9.7" iPad *1.36 - 7"x9.5" letter-sized page with 0.75" margins (11.8" diagonal) 1.41 - 297x210mm A4 page (14.3" diagonal) *1.43 - 7"x10" Time magazine minus margins (12.2" diagonal) *1.46 - 277x190mm A4 page w/ 2cm margins (13.2" diagonal) *1.50 - 35mm SLR film size (also DSLR photo size) 1.60 - 16:10 e.g. most 10.1" Android tablets 1.64 - 5.5"x9" Nat Geo magazine minus margins (10.5" diagonal) 1.71 - most 7" Android tablets 1.73 - 7.5"x13" legal-sized page w/ 1" margins *1.78 - 16:9 e.g. HDTV
I've starred the sizes which I think are most important. The two paper sizes are for reference (nobody prints content to the edge of the page except for photos, whose size doesn't matter as much). Personally I think 16:10 is the ideal ratio for a tablet. It's a good compromise between displaying paper/magazine formats, SLR photos, and HDTV movies. 3:2 would be better. 16:9 is skewed too far towards the long and skinny end, while 4:3 is skewed too far towards the square end.
In terms of wasted screen space, on the iPad's 4:3 aspect ratio screen: - a letter-sized page minus margins has a 9.6" diagonal (2% of pixels wasted) - a A4-sized page minus margins has a 9.4" diagonal (9% of pixels wasted) - a 16:9 movie a diagonal of 8.9" (25% of pixels wasted)
On a 10.1" 16:10 screen: - a letter-sized page minus margins is 8.9" diagonal (16.7% waste). - a A4-sized page minus margins has a 9.5" diagonal (9% of pixels wasted) - a 16:9 movie has a 9.8" diagonal (10% waste)
Basically, 4:3 is better for viewing pages, but sucks for movies and TV. 16:9 is good for movies and TV, but sucks for viewing pages. 16:10 is a good compromise across all main use formats. Web pages I would argue don't really matter since they're designed to be scrolled up/down (fortunately the attempt in the 1990s to eliminate the scroll bar and replace it with next page buttons died a well-deserved death).
Also, from the diagonals, you can see traditional printed formats clump around 12"-13" diagonal for readable text. The current iPad and 10.1" Android tablets are about 20%-30% too small. The 7" and 8" tablets hit the paperback size perfectly though.
You also forget one of the most important format: web pages. Given that most laptops and desktops are 16:10 or 16:9, most of them are optimized for wide screens. Also gaming is better on wide screen. And many movies are 2.39:1 which is even wider, which means it looks even more like crap on 4:3.
The 4:3 aspect ratio was only invented because it was close to a square and therefore easier to make for CRT displays.
Wide ratios are more natural because they are closer to the human vision ratio.
The main advantage to 4:3 I see are physical ergonomics. Until tablets get even lighter, more like the Kindle e-reader, there is a problem with 16:9 tablets held in portrait mode from the bottom half since they become unbalanced from all that additional weight at the top. 4:3 balances much more easily.
What? I'd have to say most web pages are not optimized for widescreens. You always get way too much whitespace on the sides on most websites. The 4:3 ratio of the iPad is great for most web pages. It's maybe not the best for movies, but it still works well. I would never want a 16:9 tablet, but 16:10 might be a good compromise.
well a big advantage is that with 4:3 everything on the screen is close to the center. When working on something like Autodesk Sketchbook Ink., grabbing your tools on the side is much easier in a squarish shape as opposed to 16:9.
The only thing 16:9 is good for is for not having black space above and below the screen. (On 16:9 PCs this space is just a fat black bezel!)
you're right about the quad-core. But AFAIK not only is apple's resolution higher than Asus's, it 'll come to market before Tprime. So technically Apple would be the first to do it.
Didn't Asus just sneak out quad-core for dual-core on those tablets? It's a better move but that doesn't make your comment seem worthwhile since you're only looking at the number of cores and not at the actual performance or utility of the device.
As for the Asus with 1080p they are actually prepping the Asus Transformer Pad Infinity tablet with 1920x1200 resolution or 2,304,000 pixels which is 224 PPI. The iPad should be announced with 2048x1536 or 3,145,728 pixels which 265 PPI.
That's a lot of extra pixels to push so people that are interested in technology will be wondering what Apple did to achieve this goal and if there are any caveats, like reduced usage times or using an AH-IPS panel that costs more.
Who gives a crap if they were first (which in this case is debatable)?
I guess it might be important if Asus were able to turn that head start into a large marketshare or a large number of sales but since that isn't going to happen, why is being "first" at anything relevant?
The produced the first netbook as well and we all know how netbooks changed the world. LOL
Is it too early to hope the new SoC will be A15 based? Or architecturally similar to one at least? A quad A9 would be less exciting, as we've seen why.
Also what about the GPU, it has 4x the resolution to push, a 543MP4 would "only" have double the power. Too early for the SGX 600 series with 20x the raw power?
I don't think they've had enough time to get an A15 design out. The rumors say the CPU is called the A5X, which would tend to indicate an update to the existing design. I'd guess a beefier GPU and maybe some higher clocks. Quad-core seems unlikely, but you never know. Big news will probably be the new display and an LTE baseband.
I also read the beta code includes support for two new processors, A6 and A5x, so maybe a slightly faster iPad 2 will be kept as the cheaper option, there's also rumors that the price on the 3 will be $80 higher, so two models would make more sense then.
Someone didn't get their juice this morning. How was what I said bitching at all? I just said there was a rumour it might be $80 higher and so there might be two models. Yeesh, relax kiddo.
A15 sounds very unlikely. It isn't expected to be shipping until late 2012 (based on TI OMAP 5 schedule, which claims to be the first Cortex-A15 SoC). Most likely what we will see is a 28nm A5 with higher clocks. The new resolution shouldn't be a big issue because graphics intensive apps like games will most likely run at 1024x768, and you won't notice the difference.
True, true. With the last bump of 9x the theoretical performance I guess I'm spoiled, 2x doesn't sound as good :P
Still a fair bit ahead of anything on Android so far, and the MP4 would put it in line with the PS Vita (although I know not to underestimate dedicated game hardware and the special APIs and closer developer control in them).
There are similar rumours for Macbook resolution bumps. If the iPad ones were right (and by now it seems confirmed) than who knows, maybe we'll get insane resolution Macbook Airs and Pros.
That seems likely. Whatever the display tech they are using in the iPad (I'm guessing AH-IPS) it seems like Apple's assumed investment of $3.9 billion with LG might be paying off for Macs, too.
I think they will be pushing heavily into Macs this year to capitalize on the rest of the PC industry faltering. Of course, everything I read about Mountain Lion says, in best Kanye voice, 'Apple doesn't care about Mac people!" but that seem quite opposite of everything they are doing.
You can say the same about Lenovo. Ever since their entry into this faltering market they've been growing hugely. Apple's mac growth is also about the fatigue of the win brand, their own halo effect besides the fine products that mac computers obviously are. Lenovo will hit the ceiling faster, Apple has plenty of room to grow. It is bad in my opinion that it grows so slowly but in the same time that they've been doing it steadily for a long time which is great.
Lenovo and few others are seeing tremendous growth. Unlike Acer a few years back with netbooks Lenovo looks to be making good products.
As for Mac growth slow and steady does often win out. I do think Apple is preparing to go strong with Macs this year so I won't be surprised if their growth rate increases, especially as China is showing more interest.
Maybe they wanted to wait until they could do the 11 and 13 inch together, I dunno. Either way, it won't be the first time an iDevice gets features before Macs.
There is nothing odd about the iPad getting a HiDPI display before the a larger display device just as there was nothing odd about the iPhone 4 getting a HiDPI display device before larger devices. Before there there is a long history of HiDPI devices with even smaller screens. Bottom line: smaller devices get higher PPI first.
But if the iPad can get a 265 PPI for a 10" display that they will 20 million+ per month then it probably is possible for Apple to do the double resolution in the 13", 15" and perhaps even the 17" MBP. Hopefully this also mean IPS.
That doesn't mean the Home Button is removed. There are a lot more reasons why that isn't the iPad 3 than there are reasons why they would remove the Home Button. But lets say that is the iPad 3 there are plenty of other rational reasons there is no Home Button showing. For instance, edited out for aesthetic reasons or the iPad is turned 180°.
...that they really went with a 2048x1536 IPS panel. I didn't even know that was feasible on a mass production scale, and I'd always assumed that even if it was, the cost would be astronomical!
I can see why they chose it, though - it's a competitive advantage (high ppi) PLUS it's a simple 2x resolution bump in each axis, so scaling legacy apps can be done automatically.
It helps to keep in mind just what "mass production" means to Apple. Mass production is Apple selling 15mil+ units in a single year, at which point a lot of interesting things become possible.
One could say all those things of the iPhone 4 and other high res phones too. The benefit is text with no jaggies, detail in pictures, etc. It might not make a difference to you, but it worked well as a selling point for them in the past.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
52 Comments
Back to Article
quiksilvr - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Asus did it first. Let it be know. Asus came out with quad core and 1080p before Apple. Fact.quiksilvr - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
They aren't ahead of the competition. They just have marketing to make people think they did it first.henrikfm - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
They don't make it first, but they do it better.aicom - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Asus did 1080p (1920x1080). Apple is doing 2048x1536 (if we believe the rumors) which is in a completely different league. I'm not arguing about the quad-core though ;)zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The Asus 1080p tablet will probably release after the iPad3 however.I think Apple shouldn't have kept the old 4:3 aspect ratio.
ImSpartacus - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Nah, it's a good aspect ratio for a hand-held tablet. Watching video is a bit wonky, but actual usage is good.zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Why would it be a good aspect ratio for tablets while phones, laptops, desktops, TV and everything else is wider?Solandri - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
AR - description1.29 - 8.5"x11" letter-sized sheet of paper (13.9" diagonal)
1.33 - 4:3 e.g. 9.7" iPad
*1.36 - 7"x9.5" letter-sized page with 0.75" margins (11.8" diagonal)
1.41 - 297x210mm A4 page (14.3" diagonal)
*1.43 - 7"x10" Time magazine minus margins (12.2" diagonal)
*1.46 - 277x190mm A4 page w/ 2cm margins (13.2" diagonal)
*1.50 - 35mm SLR film size (also DSLR photo size)
1.60 - 16:10 e.g. most 10.1" Android tablets
1.64 - 5.5"x9" Nat Geo magazine minus margins (10.5" diagonal)
1.71 - most 7" Android tablets
1.73 - 7.5"x13" legal-sized page w/ 1" margins
*1.78 - 16:9 e.g. HDTV
I've starred the sizes which I think are most important. The two paper sizes are for reference (nobody prints content to the edge of the page except for photos, whose size doesn't matter as much). Personally I think 16:10 is the ideal ratio for a tablet. It's a good compromise between displaying paper/magazine formats, SLR photos, and HDTV movies. 3:2 would be better. 16:9 is skewed too far towards the long and skinny end, while 4:3 is skewed too far towards the square end.
In terms of wasted screen space, on the iPad's 4:3 aspect ratio screen:
- a letter-sized page minus margins has a 9.6" diagonal (2% of pixels wasted)
- a A4-sized page minus margins has a 9.4" diagonal (9% of pixels wasted)
- a 16:9 movie a diagonal of 8.9" (25% of pixels wasted)
On a 10.1" 16:10 screen:
- a letter-sized page minus margins is 8.9" diagonal (16.7% waste).
- a A4-sized page minus margins has a 9.5" diagonal (9% of pixels wasted)
- a 16:9 movie has a 9.8" diagonal (10% waste)
Basically, 4:3 is better for viewing pages, but sucks for movies and TV. 16:9 is good for movies and TV, but sucks for viewing pages. 16:10 is a good compromise across all main use formats. Web pages I would argue don't really matter since they're designed to be scrolled up/down (fortunately the attempt in the 1990s to eliminate the scroll bar and replace it with next page buttons died a well-deserved death).
Also, from the diagonals, you can see traditional printed formats clump around 12"-13" diagonal for readable text. The current iPad and 10.1" Android tablets are about 20%-30% too small. The 7" and 8" tablets hit the paperback size perfectly though.
zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
You also forget one of the most important format: web pages. Given that most laptops and desktops are 16:10 or 16:9, most of them are optimized for wide screens.Also gaming is better on wide screen.
And many movies are 2.39:1 which is even wider, which means it looks even more like crap on 4:3.
The 4:3 aspect ratio was only invented because it was close to a square and therefore easier to make for CRT displays.
Wide ratios are more natural because they are closer to the human vision ratio.
KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The main advantage to 4:3 I see are physical ergonomics. Until tablets get even lighter, more like the Kindle e-reader, there is a problem with 16:9 tablets held in portrait mode from the bottom half since they become unbalanced from all that additional weight at the top. 4:3 balances much more easily.zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
uh? really?Either practice your muscles or hold your tablet in landscape
kmmatney - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
What? I'd have to say most web pages are not optimized for widescreens. You always get way too much whitespace on the sides on most websites. The 4:3 ratio of the iPad is great for most web pages. It's maybe not the best for movies, but it still works well. I would never want a 16:9 tablet, but 16:10 might be a good compromise.cptcolo - Wednesday, March 7, 2012 - link
well a big advantage is that with 4:3 everything on the screen is close to the center. When working on something like Autodesk Sketchbook Ink., grabbing your tools on the side is much easier in a squarish shape as opposed to 16:9.The only thing 16:9 is good for is for not having black space above and below the screen. (On 16:9 PCs this space is just a fat black bezel!)
Hi_res - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
you're right about the quad-core. But AFAIK not only is apple's resolution higher than Asus's, it 'll come to market before Tprime. So technically Apple would be the first to do it.tayb - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Really? Where can I buy it?solipsism - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Didn't Asus just sneak out quad-core for dual-core on those tablets? It's a better move but that doesn't make your comment seem worthwhile since you're only looking at the number of cores and not at the actual performance or utility of the device.As for the Asus with 1080p they are actually prepping the Asus Transformer Pad Infinity tablet with 1920x1200 resolution or 2,304,000 pixels which is 224 PPI. The iPad should be announced with 2048x1536 or 3,145,728 pixels which 265 PPI.
That's a lot of extra pixels to push so people that are interested in technology will be wondering what Apple did to achieve this goal and if there are any caveats, like reduced usage times or using an AH-IPS panel that costs more.
smartthanyou - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Who gives a crap if they were first (which in this case is debatable)?I guess it might be important if Asus were able to turn that head start into a large marketshare or a large number of sales but since that isn't going to happen, why is being "first" at anything relevant?
The produced the first netbook as well and we all know how netbooks changed the world. LOL
KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The quad core SoC in the Asus is still barely competitive with the A5 from a year ago, and 1080p<2048x1536.Also, nobody cares about Android tablets.
chrnochime - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
You != everybody.Then again with a name like that you must've drank a lot of kool-aid already LOL
zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Barely competitive? The CPU is more than twice as fast.It's true that the GPU is slower but non-gamers won't care.
tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Is it too early to hope the new SoC will be A15 based? Or architecturally similar to one at least? A quad A9 would be less exciting, as we've seen why.Also what about the GPU, it has 4x the resolution to push, a 543MP4 would "only" have double the power. Too early for the SGX 600 series with 20x the raw power?
tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
*4x the pixels, not resolution, before that whole war starts again :PA5 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
I don't think they've had enough time to get an A15 design out. The rumors say the CPU is called the A5X, which would tend to indicate an update to the existing design. I'd guess a beefier GPU and maybe some higher clocks. Quad-core seems unlikely, but you never know. Big news will probably be the new display and an LTE baseband.tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
I also read the beta code includes support for two new processors, A6 and A5x, so maybe a slightly faster iPad 2 will be kept as the cheaper option, there's also rumors that the price on the 3 will be $80 higher, so two models would make more sense then.inplainview - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
If you an afford an iPad in the first place are you really gonna bitch about 80 dollars?tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Someone didn't get their juice this morning. How was what I said bitching at all? I just said there was a rumour it might be $80 higher and so there might be two models. Yeesh, relax kiddo.Kristian Vättö - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
A15 sounds very unlikely. It isn't expected to be shipping until late 2012 (based on TI OMAP 5 schedule, which claims to be the first Cortex-A15 SoC). Most likely what we will see is a 28nm A5 with higher clocks. The new resolution shouldn't be a big issue because graphics intensive apps like games will most likely run at 1024x768, and you won't notice the difference.tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
True, true. With the last bump of 9x the theoretical performance I guess I'm spoiled, 2x doesn't sound as good :PStill a fair bit ahead of anything on Android so far, and the MP4 would put it in line with the PS Vita (although I know not to underestimate dedicated game hardware and the special APIs and closer developer control in them).
zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
So they will have 2048x1536 9.7" tablets while their 15" macbook pro continues to be only 1440x900.Not sure I get this one.
tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
There are similar rumours for Macbook resolution bumps. If the iPad ones were right (and by now it seems confirmed) than who knows, maybe we'll get insane resolution Macbook Airs and Pros.solipsism - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
That seems likely. Whatever the display tech they are using in the iPad (I'm guessing AH-IPS) it seems like Apple's assumed investment of $3.9 billion with LG might be paying off for Macs, too.I think they will be pushing heavily into Macs this year to capitalize on the rest of the PC industry faltering. Of course, everything I read about Mountain Lion says, in best Kanye voice, 'Apple doesn't care about Mac people!" but that seem quite opposite of everything they are doing.
ananduser - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The faltering PC industry includes macs.solipsism - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
The industry is down, but they aren't down nearly as far as they could be when Apple's PCs are included.ananduser - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
You can say the same about Lenovo. Ever since their entry into this faltering market they've been growing hugely. Apple's mac growth is also about the fatigue of the win brand, their own halo effect besides the fine products that mac computers obviously are. Lenovo will hit the ceiling faster, Apple has plenty of room to grow. It is bad in my opinion that it grows so slowly but in the same time that they've been doing it steadily for a long time which is great.solipsism - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
Lenovo and few others are seeing tremendous growth. Unlike Acer a few years back with netbooks Lenovo looks to be making good products.As for Mac growth slow and steady does often win out. I do think Apple is preparing to go strong with Macs this year so I won't be surprised if their growth rate increases, especially as China is showing more interest.
zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
I think they should have raised the resolution of their notebooks to 2560x1600 before raising the resolution of the iPad to 2048x1536tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Similar to CPUs, its about yields, its easier to get lots of working 9.7" displays at some crazy resolution than it is 13 or 15 or even larger panels.zorxd - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Well even the small 11" mac book air has a low resolution. And 11 is close enough to 9.7tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Maybe they wanted to wait until they could do the 11 and 13 inch together, I dunno. Either way, it won't be the first time an iDevice gets features before Macs.solipsism - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
There is nothing odd about the iPad getting a HiDPI display before the a larger display device just as there was nothing odd about the iPhone 4 getting a HiDPI display device before larger devices. Before there there is a long history of HiDPI devices with even smaller screens. Bottom line: smaller devices get higher PPI first.But if the iPad can get a 265 PPI for a 10" display that they will 20 million+ per month then it probably is possible for Apple to do the double resolution in the 13", 15" and perhaps even the 17" MBP. Hopefully this also mean IPS.
zorxd - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
I wasn't talking about high DPI, but only high resolutionA 1920x1200 15" mac book would have far less DPI than the upcoming iPad but would make much more sense
amdwilliam1985 - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
It makes perfect sense.iPad brings in more money than Macs(including Macbooks, iMac and etc.)
Mr Alpha - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Is it just me or is that image missing the home button?tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Yep, Gizmodo has a comparison shot of it showing it can't be in landscape either, so it looks like just gesture controls from now on.solipsism - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
That doesn't mean the Home Button is removed. There are a lot more reasons why that isn't the iPad 3 than there are reasons why they would remove the Home Button. But lets say that is the iPad 3 there are plenty of other rational reasons there is no Home Button showing. For instance, edited out for aesthetic reasons or the iPad is turned 180°.tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Possible, but Apples invitation images of late have all had major hinting in them, I suspect it isn't something for nothing.tipoo - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
Plus the "and touch"? Sounds like bezel gestures.Paulman - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
...that they really went with a 2048x1536 IPS panel. I didn't even know that was feasible on a mass production scale, and I'd always assumed that even if it was, the cost would be astronomical!I can see why they chose it, though - it's a competitive advantage (high ppi) PLUS it's a simple 2x resolution bump in each axis, so scaling legacy apps can be done automatically.
ViRGE - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
It helps to keep in mind just what "mass production" means to Apple. Mass production is Apple selling 15mil+ units in a single year, at which point a lot of interesting things become possible.tipoo - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
Exactly, and if they also get HiDPI panels for the Macbooks and eventually iMacs from the same place they can leverage some huge economies of sales.Oxford Guy - Tuesday, February 28, 2012 - link
What's the benefit of getting all these pixels?• These tablets use a very low resolution input device (fingers)
• These tablets use wireless, which is often quite low bandwidth (cellular especially)
• These tablets get all smudged from finger oil/dirt
• These tablets use SSD storage which tends to be on the small/expensive side, in comparison with hard disks
tipoo - Wednesday, February 29, 2012 - link
One could say all those things of the iPhone 4 and other high res phones too. The benefit is text with no jaggies, detail in pictures, etc. It might not make a difference to you, but it worked well as a selling point for them in the past.