Analysis of the new Apple iPad
by Anand Lal Shimpi on March 9, 2012 1:37 AM ESTFinal Words
In many ways the new iPad was a known quantity. We knew to expect a faster SoC, a significantly higher resolution display and LTE support - Apple delivered on all fronts. The new iPad, much like another iPhone, is simply a tangibly improved version of its predecessor.
The iPad 2's display quickly became unacceptable from a resolution standpoint. The 3rd generation iPad's Retina Display completely addresses the issue and creates a new benchmark for other players in the tablet and ultraportable notebook space to live up to. It really is great to see Apple pushing display technology so aggressively and at reasonable price points. I do hope it's only a matter of time before we see a similar trend on the Mac side.
The finer details of yesterday's announcement were interesting - a much larger battery and 4x-nm LTE baseband. Arguably the most important information however is what Apple didn't talk about.
Today we have a first-world-problem with tablets, including the iPad - they are spectacular for certain usage models, but frustrating for others. Tablets aren't notebook replacements yet, but they can be more useful than a notebook depending on what you're doing. At the same time, tablets can be considerably worse than a notebook - again, depending on what you're doing. The solution to having the best of both worlds is to switch between or travel with two devices: a tablet and a Mac/PC. Ideally we'd like to see consolidation where you'd only need one.
Windows 8 proposes a solution to this problem: a single OS that, when paired with a convertible tablet (or dockable tablet like the Transformer Pad), can give you a tablet experience or a full blown desktop OS on a single device. Apple hasn't tipped its hand as to what the iOS UI strategy is going forward. I suspect we'll get some update at WWDC this year, but Apple is playing it very quiet at this point. Microsoft's strategy does bode very well for Windows users who also want a tablet, however it does alienate Windows users who want a more robust desktop experience. It's clear to me that Apple is trying to move the iPad closer to the MacBook Air in its product line, but it's unclear to me whether (or when) we'll see convergence there.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
161 Comments
View All Comments
robinthakur - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
I've noticed that the trends in the organisation are to enable user's personal devices for company data. Spearheading that is the iPad/iPhones. In the last 4 companies I've worked for as a contractor, they were both issuing company iPads and enabling people's own devices, having changed the IT policy in response to user/management pressure. This is not just small companies either. BoA have now started doing it. Using Exchange you can enforce passcodes and remote wipe them. This is the current trend, and I find it hard to believe that MS will have anything on the market which will remotely worry Apple. It's not like you can use all the old windows software on a Windows 8 tablet running on Arm, and users still have to learn a new and somewhat unintuitive interface, so where' s the win there? People have got used to the super intuitive iOS since 2007 and they like it, hence the change. To most users, even in business, Windows is far too complicated for its own good. I see this everyday.The only possible win is decent Office/SharePoint integration, but since Office will shortly be arriving on iPad and there are already many solutions in the App Store for SharePoint integration, it's something of a moot point IMO. The only thing Windows had going for it were compatibility and a familiar interface which people had grown up with, which the decent Windows 7 offers. This is why the phones failed and this is also why Windows 8 will underperform. Windows 7 will survive in a similar way to XP, far past MS's predictions.
wilmarkj - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
All Current 30" monitors are already 4 MP. But they cost around 1100$ but they are high quality (16 bit color and SIPS), at thats at the same dpi as current 24" 1900x1200 monitors not anywhere close to retina quality, which i thought was over 300 dpi.solipsism - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
It's a factor dpi/ppi + distance from your retina. That's why an HDTV could be considered Retina Display at pixels than a handheld device.The equation for 20/20 vision is: 3438 * (1/x) = y, where x is the minimum distance away from your eyes it has to be placed and y is the number of pixels per inch.
If you have a 46" 1080p HDTV that is 48 PPI so the equation is: 3438 * (1/x) = 48, which means you need to sit over 6" away for the pixels to become indistinguishable. Of course, there are other factors involved but that is the basis of the definition.
Mitch89 - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
Hence why most people can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on their HDTVs.Mitch89 - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
4K does not equal 4 megapixel. A 4K display would have more than 7 megapixels.4K refers to the width of the display in pixels, likely 4096x2560 in a 16:10 aspect.
To put that in perspective, most current 30" displays (Dell, Apple, etc) are 2560px wide.
I for one and looking forward to that with some better UI scaling. My 27" Dell 2709W looks great at 1920x1200 for readability, but if that resolution were doubled like the new iPad (more pixels, same view), it would be incredibly smooth.
steven75 - Sunday, March 11, 2012 - link
They'll buy iPads because Win8 (metro interface) won't have the 200,000 apps the iPad does.tdawg - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
Agreed. I'd love a high resolution 27" or 30" monitor, but I'm not willing to pay more than $400-$500 for a PC monitor. If panel prices can be driven down to my price point, I'd be happy.Mitch89 - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
I'm tempted to replace my Dell 2709W with a U2711 just for the relatively minor res bump (2560x1440 vs 1920x1200). The drop to 16x9 is a shame, but having recently purchased dual U2711's for an editing suite I built for a friend, they are awesome, not to mention sharply priced.RHurst - Friday, March 9, 2012 - link
YES! Couldn't agree more.Sabresiberian - Tuesday, March 13, 2012 - link
I agree, a pixel density higher than 200 PPI and 16:10, about 27" or 30" size.200Hz would be great, too. (I'll settle for 120 though.)
You know, this technology isn't new. There were LCD panels made with that kind of density over a decade ago:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_mon...
Of course, they were extremely expensive back then ($18,000), but tablets prove they don't have to be today.
One thing I DO NOT want is a screen with a ratio less than 16:10, and a lot of these "4K" displays are worse than 16:9.