• After 15+ years, we've made a big change: Android Forums is now Early Bird Club. Learn more here.

Apple iPad 3 launch => Android win? Apple win?

Best Tablet of 2012?

  • The iPad

    Votes: 9 42.9%
  • The Asus Transformer Infinity

    Votes: 6 28.6%
  • The Samsung Galaxy Tab 11.6

    Votes: 2 9.5%
  • The Samsung Note 10.1

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 4 19.0%

  • Total voters
    21
Depends what you use it for. I do photo and video work for a living, you bet your behind I want that display to show my work off to clients at a meeting. I also know designers, models, makeup artists, graphic artists and all kinds of people in that industry who use iPads for work and will gladly pay for the new display and more powerful GPU. Then you have all the gamers...I think plenty of people will have a use for the new features and the sales numbers will reflect that.

If they hadn't included the updated screen, people would still be lined up to buy the thing.
 
Upvote 0
Thats nice and all, but the real question is what is the ppi on that display? Nowhere near 246 I bet. Even if they do match or exceed the resolution before the next iPad, its unlikely they get close to the amount of pixels and thats what really makes the iPad's display stand out, more so then the resolution.

You do know that Samsung supply the screen for Apple? and was already in the works of releasing a display with the same resolution.

Samsung 11.6 tablet to beat iPad 3 in high resolution race - Pocket-lint
 
Upvote 0
Sometimes, when people work in technology today, they don't want to continue doing so when they get home from work. I used to like tinkering with my computer and OS a lot. After I got a job working with computers all day, I just want my computer to work for me when I get home and not have to tinker with it. Just give me an easy button.



In Hong Kong, they did away with line ups. They posted a sign outside the store to tell people not to line up. They use an online lottery system for orders and customers just get an email with the time they can come down to pick up their iPad.



I look forward to reading your report.



That is not true. What happened was that Apple was finally able to get a strong patent case against Microsoft after other cases were thrown out. I believe the patent was something related to the QuickTime media player that MS infringed on. The MS engineer actually admitted to using some Apple code. Apple was pretty much on the verge of winning when MS and Apple settled. The announcement made it look like MS was "investing" in Apple to make MS look good.

Actually, it is true. Remember this was a time when Microsoft was at the top of their game, and the undisputed king of the industry. Microsoft had loads more legal firepower and they could have kept it in court for decades until Apple fizzled out. Remember, prior to this Apple had lost *every single lawsuit* they had filed against Microsoft. Microsoft could have curb stomped Apple at that point in time with relative ease.
 
Upvote 0
You do know that Samsung supply the screen for Apple? and was already in the works of releasing a display with the same resolution.

Samsung 11.6 tablet to beat iPad 3 in high resolution race - Pocket-lint

Also, Samsung Supplies Apple With IPad Screen After LG-Sharp Miss

I was a little surprised that they were dumping LG at first, then remembered that Sharp has had an Android phone with the same resolution and size of the iP4 since late 2010 or early 2011. It's not magic, just good manufacturing.

And how about Sammy supplying the panel? Suddenly LG and Sharp can't meet Apple's high standards - or - Apple has found an interesting piece to toss into the mix for cross-licensing settlements?

I'll go with Cross License and Discounts for $20, Alex!

Anyway, your point is well-made. All that's required to put out higher resolution displays is the corporate desire to serve the market segment that cares.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar
Upvote 0
Thats nice and all, but the real question is what is the ppi on that display? Nowhere near 246 I bet. Even if they do match or exceed the resolution before the next iPad, its unlikely they get close to the amount of pixels and thats what really makes the iPad's display stand out, more so then the resolution.

When did 246PPI suddenly qualify as 'Retina Display'? I thought it was 300PPI or more.

Clearly Apple has changed the definition because you hold the iPad further away from your face. They showed this in their presentation to make sure everyone knew this.

If anyone else did it, like the maker of a cheap $10 prepay phone with a 128x60 pixel screen saying 'if you put it on the other side of the room, you won't be able to see the pixels' the world would laugh at them!

Of course the display is great, don't get me wrong, but it's still very cheeky. Not that it will ever beat the laughable press release after antennagate that went along the lines of, 'Oh no! Guess what. One of our programmers messed up and when your phone was showing no signal - it actually had great signal. So we've issued a new update that will now show more bars all the time, even if you can't make or hold a call'. Again, just imagine how everyone would treat a competitor trying that sort of stunt.
 
Upvote 0
Depends what you use it for. I do photo and video work for a living, you bet your behind I want that display to show my work off to clients at a meeting. I also know designers, models, makeup artists, graphic artists and all kinds of people in that industry who use iPads for work and will gladly pay for the new display and more powerful GPU. Then you have all the gamers...I think plenty of people will have a use for the new features and the sales numbers will reflect that.

Yes, I totally agree that the new iPad is going to be awesome for that.
 
Upvote 0
Please, retinal display is a marketing term, not an optical definition. :)

The iP3gs had 480x320 and needed to compete with the rash of Androids at 800x480. Both dimensions were multiplied by 2 so developers could more quickly update their screen-dependent apps (the hallmark of the iOS stable).

To prevent catcalling over the resolution leap and avoid explaining how the resolution for the iP4 was chosen, the concept of the retinal display was born.

Every display at sufficient distance from the eyes is retinal.

Even whole galaxies at sufficient distance in the night sky are the equivalent of a tiny pixel to the naked eye. ;)
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar
Upvote 0
Please, retinal display is a marketing term, not an optical definition. :)

I know (love the galaxy reference - or did you mean Galaxy?!), but Steve Jobs explained what Apple considered to be 'Retina Display' and it was over 300PPI.

Now it isn't, so they point out that you hold the thing further away.

My TV is a lot further away, so maybe that screen is Retina Display too - even though it's only 1920x1080!

The requirement to double up to allow easy scaling is great for developers (it's also why people effectively knew all along what the iPad screen was going to be) but it means a very substantial jump next time. Or maybe there won't be a jump as we've reached the limits of the human eye.

So I guess they now make it faster, last longer and lighter. Obviously the camera can get upgraded and they can add more storage, but eventually they - and everyone else - will begin to reach a ceiling.

That's another reason why I think that things like NFC will have to be next, not just improving the screen or chipset.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar and EarlyMon
Upvote 0
Most displays are beyond the limits of most users.

Oddly, it seems to me that most people can't accept the idea that an inability to see dots is not a personal shortcoming, it's a fact of statistical distribution of a biological observable. Instead, we get flame wars over it.

The parameters for perceived detail on moving pictures - in order - are color, contrast, saturation and then finally, actual dot resolution.

This turns around somewhat for still images but becomes program dependent. The contribution of resolution to detail is highest on plain text on a solid background, and still important but less so for pictures of Fido. And in both cases, color affects perceived details as well, greatly so.

No surprise that it's the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) who publish the reliable seating charts and equations governing this. Plus, they're not idiots - some of their studies going back to the 50s even took quantum effects into account when they got busy figuring out how we really see. Fascinating stuff.

Anyway, bottom line, if it looks good to you, whatever "it" is, then it's the right choice for your needs. ;)

PS, in my opinion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar
Upvote 0
You do know that Samsung supply the screen for Apple? and was already in the works of releasing a display with the same resolution.

Samsung 11.6 tablet to beat iPad 3 in high resolution race - Pocket-lint

samsung had to get Apple's specs first, before they could reproduce a similar screen. Ever wonder why Samsung produces similar products after Apple unveils them, regardless of what they claim? by the way, that article was written in December. Where is this ipad killer display?

And i still remember this quote after the iPad 2's release, which was kind of funny to me:

Dong-Joo Lee, executive vice president of Samsung Mobile division, spoke to Yonhap News Agency about the concerns over the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 in its current state when compared to the iPad 2: "We will have to improve the parts that are inadequate. Apple made it very thin."
And then 3 months later we saw the new 10.1 Tab, which looked very, very similar to the iPad 2. Even loved the replica 30 pin connector by Samsung.

And LG is also building screens for the iPad. Still trying to confirm if Sony was capable of doing so, as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar
Upvote 0
Oh yeah, 300 ppi. The point was you bring it to your face and get below the minimum focusing distance before the cohesive image became distinguishable as dots.

First retort came from one of the researchers Jobs quoted saying that you needed a few more ppi to really hit that point.

Second problem came from the fact that most of the visual parameters aren't absolutes, they're statistical. So lots of folks (a small minority but lots) blogged that they could get close enough to see dots before defocusing. Pesky humans with their magnificent diversity!

Finally, who uses a display that way?

Just tossing this in because I didn't want to come across the wrong way. Many here have posted on the benefits of higher resolution displays for them and I am at no point here questioning that. I personally lack the ability to discern dots as well as many of you, as my near vision is being overtaken by presbyopia.

I just hate the word retinal. ;)

I don't know, so I will ask - does the iPad 3 have color / contrast / gamma adjustments? (My kingdom for gamma and contrast controls for all of our devices! :))

Personally, I care about this stuff in a display, from the same retinal expert that I mentioned earlier -

Apple iPad 2 LCD Display Shoot-Out
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar
Upvote 0
And LG is also building screens for the iPad. Still trying to confirm if Sony was capable of doing so, as well.

Supplier agreements can be a bear to track down. My link says Samsung will provide the iPad 3 display - but we should all take that with a grain of salt until confirmed.

Pretty sure that Sony doesn’t produce panels anymore.

Samsung and Sony formed SLCD Corporation to do that, ownership was 50/50 except Samsung had one more share, and the technologies used were from Samsung. Sony sold panels to HTC from there when the Sammy AMOLED supply dried up, and soon news bloggers everywhere were talking Sony panels and that SLCD stood for Super LCD, of which no such display tech ever existed. Didn't stop OEM websites from claiming that their mobile devices had Super LCD displays. Whatever sells. :) Soniera has an editorial about it, he and I and many others hate that marketing term.

Recently, I don't recall, a year or so ago, Sony shifted alliance to invest in an advanced Sharp LCD fab. Some controversy ensued, again I forget the details.

For years, if you bought a Sony color LCD tv, you were getting a Samsung panel courtesy of SLCD. Some newer models may have the Sharp panel now, I haven't kept up.

But LG, Samsung and Sharp have all been advancing their technologies all along, not just sitting on their keisters.

So whichever one makes the iPad 3 display, it's likely to be pretty good, obviously.

If anyone has info and links on any Sony mobile display fab to correct me, I'll appreciate it, but I don't think that Sony does that.

Edit - Sony sold the mobile LCD fab they bought in 2005 to Kyocera in 2010.

PS - looks like the rumors about Apple dropping the 30 pin connector were false. I know that the pinout is upside down by comparison, but I wonder if Samsung did that to demonstrate parts supply to Apple.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jmar
Upvote 0
Actually, it is true. Remember this was a time when Microsoft was at the top of their game, and the undisputed king of the industry. Microsoft had loads more legal firepower and they could have kept it in court for decades until Apple fizzled out. Remember, prior to this Apple had lost *every single lawsuit* they had filed against Microsoft. Microsoft could have curb stomped Apple at that point in time with relative ease.

Apple did lose on many of its lawsuits against MS over Windows in the early 90s. However, Apple did have a very strong case against MS using code in its Windows Media player that was copied from Apple's QuickTime. The suit was worth over $1billion. They had a strong case since MS did say they copied the code. This was one of the reasons that MS and Apple came to an agreement. Here's a link to an article that describes the deal in more detail:

Mac Office, $150 Million, and the Story Nobody Covered

So many articles I have read talk about the $150million dollars. There was much more than this behind the scenes. Also, keeping Apple afloat won't eliminate all anti-trust action against MS. There were a whole bunch of companies waiting in line to testify against MS in an anti-trust case. Netscape and Sun are there too as well as others.
 
Upvote 0
When did 246PPI suddenly qualify as 'Retina Display'? I thought it was 300PPI or more.

Clearly Apple has changed the definition because you hold the iPad further away from your face. They showed this in their presentation to make sure everyone knew this.

If anyone else did it, like the maker of a cheap $10 prepay phone with a 128x60 pixel screen saying 'if you put it on the other side of the room, you won't be able to see the pixels' the world would laugh at them!

I own both a phone and a tablet. I can say that I definitely hold my tablet much farther away from my face than my phone. Their argument that a tablet display does not need as high a pixel density as a phone display is pretty sound to me.
 
Upvote 0
samsung had to get Apple's specs first, before they could reproduce a similar screen. Ever wonder why Samsung produces similar products after Apple unveils them, regardless of what they claim? by the way, that article was written in December. Where is this ipad killer display?

Samsung admitted they aren't doing well with tablets. I doubt you will see them rushing to make more anytime soon.
 
Upvote 0
Please, retinal display is a marketing term, not an optical definition. :)

The iP3gs had 480x320 and needed to compete with the rash of Androids at 800x480. Both dimensions were multiplied by 2 so developers could more quickly update their screen-dependent apps (the hallmark of the iOS stable).

To prevent catcalling over the resolution leap and avoid explaining how the resolution for the iP4 was chosen, the concept of the retinal display was born.

Every display at sufficient distance from the eyes is retinal.

Even whole galaxies at sufficient distance in the night sky are the equivalent of a tiny pixel to the naked eye. ;)

It is a marketing term. However, the term is applied to the distance for your eyes that a device is normally used. My Nokia N97 phone can be considered retinal if placed far enough away from my eyes. However, it would not be reasonable for me to actually hold it at that distance since my arms aren't that long.

Oh yeah, 300 ppi. The point was you bring it to your face and get below the minimum focusing distance before the cohesive image became distinguishable as dots.

First retort came from one of the researchers Jobs quoted saying that you needed a few more ppi to really hit that point.

This I agree with. There was an article I read regarding this that the ppi needed to be a bit higher. Jobs then said that the average eye does not have perfect enough vision as the cornea and lens are not perfect enough anyway for the average person to discern individual pixels. I recall laughing at the redefinition of retina display. In any case, in normal use, I highly doubt many people would complain that it is not quite retinal.

Second problem came from the fact that most of the visual parameters aren't absolutes, they're statistical. So lots of folks (a small minority but lots) blogged that they could get close enough to see dots before defocusing. Pesky humans with their magnificent diversity!

Finally, who uses a display that way?

Just tossing this in because I didn't want to come across the wrong way. Many here have posted on the benefits of higher resolution displays for them and I am at no point here questioning that. I personally lack the ability to discern dots as well as many of you, as my near vision is being overtaken by presbyopia.

I just hate the word retinal. ;)

I don't know, so I will ask - does the iPad 3 have color / contrast / gamma adjustments? (My kingdom for gamma and contrast controls for all of our devices! :))

Personally, I care about this stuff in a display, from the same retinal expert that I mentioned earlier -

Apple iPad 2 LCD Display Shoot-Out

I've had an opportunity to compare my WVGA screen to a retina display side by side. Personally, I do notice the difference in sharpness between my phone and the iPhone 4. I have no doubt that if I took my Eee Pad Transformer and placed it side by side with the new iPad, I would notice the difference in image sharpness. I think that if people look at an iPad beside any Android tablet, most people will be drawn to the iPad because of the display. I do feel that the sharpness of the display is going to be a very big selling point. Although I do no plan to get an iPad as I already have a tablet that I like more, I am certainly going to check it out to see the display.

I have no idea what you mean by gamma adjustment. I would think that many other people don't know or don't care either. If this and other things you mentioned is supposed to give a better image, all I need to do is see it and compare.
 
Upvote 0
Here are my photos - I hope the mods don't see my link as a competitive threat!

A launch in pictures: the new iPad lands in the UK | Apple iPad 3 news | iPad | Pocket Gamer

PC World had loads available on Oxford St and said you could buy as many as you wanted (but only two per credit card). There was no queue there (see the photo above) and only two customers in the store when I popped in at 0830 (it opened at 8am). Lots of staff though, who were surprised that nobody seemed interested.

Mind you, Apple had delivered the iPads but not updated its display area - so it still said iPad 2 (with bits of A4 paper saying 'new iPad' next to it).

Some of the people at the front of the line at Regent St (http://www.pocketgamer.co.uk/r/iPad/...ws.asp?c=38905 ) had been to PC World on Tottenham Court Road at midnight and bought a new iPad (or two) already, so were playing with it in the queue, much to the surprise of some journalists who had turned up!

What's more, PC World confirmed by looking on their system that had still stock at TCR (they apparently got 500 in) even after people had gone there long before the Apple Store(s) opened.

It seems that stock was available everywhere and Pocket Lint reported that the queues were all gone by 1015 at Regent St and there was still stock of all but one model left.

One other thing to note is that a large number (as in 100+) people in the queue at Apple were all there to buy 2 iPads for export, under the control of a Russian fellow that was seen managing them in the week. They'd apparently tried to jump the queue, and a Russian lady was actually asking to take the place of anyone at the front for money - but they all refused. An awful lot of those sold this morning will be leaving the UK in a matter of hours and sold for huge profits.

However, for those who did want an iPad for themselves and queued, it's only at the Apple store where you have 100+ Apple staff cheering you on the way in, and the press waiting for you on the way out (and a load of promo girls giving you freebies!).

For those who don't care for all that, but wants a new iPad, go out to any PC World today or tomorrow and you'll get one easily. I think other retailers like John Lewis have them too (with an extra year warranty free).

Those people being told that they'll have to wait 2-3 weeks after ordering online should go out and get one now and then cancel the order - it's pretty silly to wait for no reason!

Don't get me wrong - the new iPad will sell well but there certainly wasn't the same 'wow factor' at the launch.
 
Upvote 0
Alright, anyone in line this morning for an iPad?

I just got home with my new iPad, using it now. As already mentioned, the screen is amazing. This probably even looks better than my 27 inch iMac display. It's for sure the sharpest and cleanest mobile display have ever used the colors just pop. Using the dictation feature to type this and it works pretty well. Now I just need to test the camera, video quality and add some of my photos.
 
Upvote 0
Please, retinal display is a marketing term, not an optical definition. :)

The iP3gs had 480x320 and needed to compete with the rash of Androids at 800x480. Both dimensions were multiplied by 2 so developers could more quickly update their screen-dependent apps (the hallmark of the iOS stable).

To prevent catcalling over the resolution leap and avoid explaining how the resolution for the iP4 was chosen, the concept of the retinal display was born.

Every display at sufficient distance from the eyes is retinal.
I'm waiting with bated breath for a reviewer to shoot the "new" iPad (tired of typing that already) and a bunch of other tablets with good screens from 15" away with a D-SLR and put up the full-size images for comparison. But of course they haven't.
 
Upvote 0

BEST TECH IN 2023

We've been tracking upcoming products and ranking the best tech since 2007. Thanks for trusting our opinion: we get rewarded through affiliate links that earn us a commission and we invite you to learn more about us.

Smartphones