D3lta
Nov 3, 10:39 AM
lol $120.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
ravenvii
May 3, 12:16 PM
I'm in.
Please move all the relevant responses to DP's questions to the OP. If it's not in the OP, I don't consider it to be a rule. Maybe I'm a minority, but I'm not going to read through pages of this thread trying to figure things out.
Wish granted.
so, counting plutonius, mscriv and aggie we are 8!
Awaiting confirmation from mscriv. In the meanwhile, one slot is still open.
Please move all the relevant responses to DP's questions to the OP. If it's not in the OP, I don't consider it to be a rule. Maybe I'm a minority, but I'm not going to read through pages of this thread trying to figure things out.
Wish granted.
so, counting plutonius, mscriv and aggie we are 8!
Awaiting confirmation from mscriv. In the meanwhile, one slot is still open.
Stridder44
Aug 11, 05:36 PM
Dear God,
I would like this rumor to come true.
Amen.
I would like this rumor to come true.
Amen.
GeckoHH
Nov 25, 04:56 AM
I am positive that Apple will bring a twist into the mobile telephony market, something revolutionary nobody could think that it will work.
And in 2 years from now everybody will state: Yes, Apple did it again.
I bet they do the following:
- Follow the KISS (Keep it stupit simple) concept and build on there current iPOD success!
The new iPhone will be a WIFI iPOD with Skype (or something alike) build in. A high quality camera and Bluetooth Stereo Wireless will complete the hardware.
The software will allow "on the go" chat, blogging, videocasts, RSS and a mobile safari browser.
Strategy: Replace the need for an iPOD´s and provide the best personal communication tool
- Eliminate traditional phone contracts with MobilePhone operators.
Apple will aquire "FON" and build the largest hotspot community in the world where every iPhone user can communicate for free.
This is my prediction. :)
Jens
P.S. Too bad for palm, but it is not enough just to build the best smartphone. You need to win the community...
And in 2 years from now everybody will state: Yes, Apple did it again.
I bet they do the following:
- Follow the KISS (Keep it stupit simple) concept and build on there current iPOD success!
The new iPhone will be a WIFI iPOD with Skype (or something alike) build in. A high quality camera and Bluetooth Stereo Wireless will complete the hardware.
The software will allow "on the go" chat, blogging, videocasts, RSS and a mobile safari browser.
Strategy: Replace the need for an iPOD´s and provide the best personal communication tool
- Eliminate traditional phone contracts with MobilePhone operators.
Apple will aquire "FON" and build the largest hotspot community in the world where every iPhone user can communicate for free.
This is my prediction. :)
Jens
P.S. Too bad for palm, but it is not enough just to build the best smartphone. You need to win the community...
0815
Apr 25, 09:01 AM
Call me naive (or perhaps paranoid) but I've been assuming my location is being tracked since I bought my first smart phone years ago.
I guess the fine point of difference is: It is stored on your phone (and computer where you do the backup), but it is never send to anyone ... so Apple is not tracking you since they never see that information. Saying Apple tracks you would mean that information collected is send to Apple, which is not the case.
I guess the fine point of difference is: It is stored on your phone (and computer where you do the backup), but it is never send to anyone ... so Apple is not tracking you since they never see that information. Saying Apple tracks you would mean that information collected is send to Apple, which is not the case.
Full of Win
Mar 27, 12:09 AM
If true...sounds like iPhone 3GS and iPad 1 owners are going to be shown the door.
techfreak85
Apr 23, 04:34 PM
Would this mainly be for notebooks? I assume it would be too expensive to achieve a high enough PPI on a 22inch+ display, no?
Funkymonk
Apr 26, 03:54 PM
In for the unwarranted android hate even though it's a personal choice and impacts our personal lives in no way! :p
those android using smug filthy bastards. we should get together and put them in camps of some kind and reeducate them of the greatness of iphones and terminate the ones who don't oblige to our views :D
those android using smug filthy bastards. we should get together and put them in camps of some kind and reeducate them of the greatness of iphones and terminate the ones who don't oblige to our views :D
ghostface147
Apr 5, 01:38 PM
So uh what exactly would Toyota lose if they tell Apple to stick it? At best all I can guess are licenses to use use an iPod trademark or something similar to integrate into the car stereo, if they even have that option. I can't think of anything else.
ftaok
Apr 7, 02:51 PM
I can say CONFIDENTLY that the war is NOT over. It's been what 2 years? No way. Apple may have the upper hand in the battle but has NOT won the war.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
What I'm saying is that by the time Android or WebOS or QNX catch up to the iPad, Apple will already be onto the next big thing. Tablets will have peaked, and the weak players will have dropped out.
So instead of following Apple and forever having your products known as iPad killers, why not spend the money that you'd put into designing mediocre tablets into creating the next device? I'm sure that Sammy, Moto, RIM, etc all have some budget to develop the next generation of devices, but I think they need to spend a lot more on the R&D.
For instance, when netbooks were all the rage, everyone was demanding that Apple come up with their own netbook. For whatever reason, Apple wasn't (and still isn't) in the netbook market. Instead, they spent their energies (and money) developing the successor to the netbook. In hindsight, we should have all seen it coming. Jobs even said that Apple couldn't make a decent 'computer' for less than $500. Apple was busy creating the iPad to be that device that folks would shell out $500 for. Genius.
So instead of waging a long, drawn out war against Apple for a small slice of the tablet market, work on making the successor to the tablet.
*LTD*
Apr 6, 05:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
100,000 suckers. Samsung pulled off the same feat: Get whatever you can an then trash it.
100,000 suckers. Samsung pulled off the same feat: Get whatever you can an then trash it.
steadysignal
May 2, 07:40 PM
mac -
i really wish we could have gotten there.
it seems so foreign now, but in a system where all is divisible by ten makes life very easy.
but, we'll keep using our libres and ounces and such...the imperial way.
meh.
i really wish we could have gotten there.
it seems so foreign now, but in a system where all is divisible by ten makes life very easy.
but, we'll keep using our libres and ounces and such...the imperial way.
meh.
ChazUK
Apr 18, 04:46 PM
Oh come on, we aren't really going to resort to the "there's only one way to design a mobile device" argument, are we? You're telling me the only way to design the Galaxy Tab was to make it look identical to the iPhone 3GS?
My iPhone 4 doesn't look anything like my wife's iPhone 3GS, so apparently there are at least two ways to design a mobile phone.
None of the other Android phones or tablets I've seen look like iPhones either. Only Samsung's.
The galaxy tab looks different to the phone 3gs from my experience with it.
It is lacking a chrome bezel & the sides are flattened, black matte plastic and lacks a physical "home" button.
They are similar but far from identical.
My iPhone 4 doesn't look anything like my wife's iPhone 3GS, so apparently there are at least two ways to design a mobile phone.
None of the other Android phones or tablets I've seen look like iPhones either. Only Samsung's.
The galaxy tab looks different to the phone 3gs from my experience with it.
It is lacking a chrome bezel & the sides are flattened, black matte plastic and lacks a physical "home" button.
They are similar but far from identical.
Popeye206
Apr 25, 09:35 AM
You do realize everything you said is untrue, right?
He does not care. Anything to slam Apple he will. See he never mentioned Google who does a similar thing!
He does not care. Anything to slam Apple he will. See he never mentioned Google who does a similar thing!
poppe
Aug 3, 11:42 PM
Wow! Tip of the hat to Apple and Intel. But why aren't the Blue Man on my TV selling the Core 2 Duo? Somebody tell them to put the LSD away and get to a studio.
And of course, nobody's talking about the elephant in the room. These new chips are SIXTY FOUR BIT BABY. Is 32-bit the new G4? Cuz we all know the G4 is the new G3.
64-bit OSX by the end of the year perhaps? With quadruple binaries to support the G4, the G5, the Core Duo, and the Core Duo 2? Or will Apple deny us our 64-bit freedom?
64 Bit has been talked alot about. There is a thread called 64 Bit Core Duo (why not core 2 duo, I don't know) acctually I think, but I know nothing about it so I can't comment. It won't make 32 bit things even close to G4. 64 Bit, from what i've read, isn't really optimized until two things: the operating system is ready to manage it, and the software is designed for it. The Core 2 duo will be faster than the core duo, but for multiple reasons and not only on the 64 bit computing.
And of course, nobody's talking about the elephant in the room. These new chips are SIXTY FOUR BIT BABY. Is 32-bit the new G4? Cuz we all know the G4 is the new G3.
64-bit OSX by the end of the year perhaps? With quadruple binaries to support the G4, the G5, the Core Duo, and the Core Duo 2? Or will Apple deny us our 64-bit freedom?
64 Bit has been talked alot about. There is a thread called 64 Bit Core Duo (why not core 2 duo, I don't know) acctually I think, but I know nothing about it so I can't comment. It won't make 32 bit things even close to G4. 64 Bit, from what i've read, isn't really optimized until two things: the operating system is ready to manage it, and the software is designed for it. The Core 2 duo will be faster than the core duo, but for multiple reasons and not only on the 64 bit computing.
munkery
Nov 3, 01:49 PM
what we have to remember is that there have been a number of vulernabilities in iOS that have been exploited in order to jailbreak iOS devices (these vulnerabilities in many cases are also common to OSX as they spring from the same codebase), these exploits do provide the ability to gain root access to OSX and hence provide an avenue to install software (without the users knowledge) that could be used to cause the theft or destruction of data.
iOS is 32bit. Many security mitigations in 32bit processes can often be defeated via bruteforce. Snow Leopard is mostly 64bit. 64bit processes have more security mitigations and have not yet been exploited. So, that is why many iOS exploits do not show up in OS X.
iOS is 32bit. Many security mitigations in 32bit processes can often be defeated via bruteforce. Snow Leopard is mostly 64bit. 64bit processes have more security mitigations and have not yet been exploited. So, that is why many iOS exploits do not show up in OS X.
bella92108
Apr 5, 02:31 PM
Ok, so you don't know how jailbreaking works. Here's the deal:
Jailbreakers find a flaw in the OS and find a way to break in. That same flaw could be used by hackers to attack my non-jailbroken phone.
So Apple has to fix that hole to protect me. That has the side effect of not making the jailbreak anymore, but what do you want them to do? They have to protect me, the customer, when they find a security flaw. Right?
So that's what they do. Anyone who argues that Apple should just leave secuity holes in their OS isn't really being realistic.
While I agree in a sense, it's commonly known that there's no way to plug every hole, so you're scooping out water from a sinking ship with a cup. Every iOS device has been jailbroken since release, many several times using several exploits. There will never be a day when a software company will be smarter than the hacking community... software companies can't afford to buy them all :-)
Jailbreakers find a flaw in the OS and find a way to break in. That same flaw could be used by hackers to attack my non-jailbroken phone.
So Apple has to fix that hole to protect me. That has the side effect of not making the jailbreak anymore, but what do you want them to do? They have to protect me, the customer, when they find a security flaw. Right?
So that's what they do. Anyone who argues that Apple should just leave secuity holes in their OS isn't really being realistic.
While I agree in a sense, it's commonly known that there's no way to plug every hole, so you're scooping out water from a sinking ship with a cup. Every iOS device has been jailbroken since release, many several times using several exploits. There will never be a day when a software company will be smarter than the hacking community... software companies can't afford to buy them all :-)
crees!
Aug 2, 11:45 AM
As for the two-camera thing... wasn't there a rumor sometime back about how Leopard could handle dual-camera chatting? It would use the monitor/camera that the chat window was on... move the chat window to the other display, and the other camera picks up the chat! Now that sounds wicked... sort of :D
-hh
Sep 11, 09:17 AM
beatles
That explains London, in spades.
-hh
That explains London, in spades.
-hh
Blakjack
Mar 28, 10:16 AM
Get the **** outta here. No iPhone till 2012.......HAHAHAHAHAH. Jokes on them
RHatton
Apr 7, 12:01 PM
I never would suggest that Apple is going to tank/go back to HP manufactured iPod Mini...lol
I just want other companies to succeed, if only to make my Apple products that much better. For instance, Id love to see the iP5 have a 4inch screen (im sure many disagree)...that could be a possibility because of some HTC success (Evo, Inspire...etc). BTW: Glad to hear youre a very contemplative buyer, it always pays off. Stay well friend, have a wonderful day.
With how much time Apple spent on the retina display, seeking an extremely high resolution it would almost seem counter intuitive to make the screen any bigger. I don't foresee that ever happening but hey you never know.
I just want other companies to succeed, if only to make my Apple products that much better. For instance, Id love to see the iP5 have a 4inch screen (im sure many disagree)...that could be a possibility because of some HTC success (Evo, Inspire...etc). BTW: Glad to hear youre a very contemplative buyer, it always pays off. Stay well friend, have a wonderful day.
With how much time Apple spent on the retina display, seeking an extremely high resolution it would almost seem counter intuitive to make the screen any bigger. I don't foresee that ever happening but hey you never know.
Hildron101010
Mar 30, 08:20 PM
Yes they did. Did you even try it before replying anything?
Yes I did, it was still grayed out.
Yes I did, it was still grayed out.
aarond12
Apr 5, 01:55 PM
I'm all for the freedom of jailbreaking, but I also have to be realistic: If I am a Scion fan (I'm not) and want this theme on my iPhone, I have to jailbreak it. If I mess something up and end up bricking my iPhone, can I blame Toyota? Not likely.
This seems less like a freedom issue and more of a liability issue.
This seems less like a freedom issue and more of a liability issue.