NewNiceMrMe Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Hmm, well it won't be much use to us in the UK for a good while yet... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CarMad Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Retina at 2048 x 1536. Wow. I'm really surprised at the latter. If they've managed to implement that fully then that's going to be quite a sight. See told I even quoted that resolution. I think calling the New iPad is a little silly personally they need a number or HD or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinspark Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 It's effectively a 2S, isn't it? - don't see any real reason for 2 owners to upgrade - mind you, I have an original iPad and won't be upgrading until my favourite apps will no longer run the latest version on my iPad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 How is it a 2S when the screen resolution has doubled, it supports 4G networks, has a new processor, a bigger battery (hence the slightly increased size albeit with the same battery life) and a host of other new features? They're hardly what you'd call small additions, surely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malagus Posted March 7, 2012 Report Share Posted March 7, 2012 Pleasantly surprised with it. The increased screen res and support for 4G makes it a great proposition for Unified Comms, as Mac previously suggested. Still wouldn't buy one myself (more due to being pretty damn poor at the moment than anything else), but it's now an even better proposition for the enterprise, although a really fully featured MDM solution is still not quite available yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Calm Chris Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 2 by 2 sounds silly, and it isn't leap years on. There is a recession, and all IT kit should have a decent life span. I'm sure technology would allow a new type IPad every 3 months, but doing so devalues the product. Rolling out something that works with old, and adds something new every ' couple of years makes more sense. If I was in charge I'd split Apple and introduce a B2B level, same box different users. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 I like the fact they have done away with the daft numbering. It should just be the new iPad with a subtle differentiator of 3rd gen or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4ttm4son Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 "The New iPad" I think they do this just so that no one wins the office sweepstake IMO, it should just be called iPad. It's always a replacement, so don't bother with numbering. If everyone did that what series would BMW be on by now? Is there even a 4G network yet? I though they were still trying to get that implemented and rights issued etc. The screen resolution is nuts and makes me think it's daft for a 50" Plasma telly to have fewer pixels than a little tablet!! Sort it out Panasonic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Thing is, Apple have relied on the shallow 'one up' nature of a lot of their customers having to have the latest version, if it's just the 'new ipad' how will anyone know how superior they are to everyone else? Also, did they steal that idea from VW? The mk6 Golf is officially the 'new Golf' rather than the mk6! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 The screen resolution is nuts and makes me think it's daft for a 50" Plasma telly to have fewer pixels than a little tablet!! Sort it out Panasonic. What would be the point? There is no source of media that would exploit any higher than the existing 1080p HD standard, most blu-rays are 720, as is Sky HD etc etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scillyisles Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 What would be the point? There is no source of media that would exploit any higher than the existing 1080p HD standard, most blu-rays are 720, as is Sky HD etc etc. There actually is 4K which is 4096 horitzontal resolution i.e double the 3rd Gen IPad and there are quite a few videos on Youtube which are in 4k format.4k is the next generation screen resolution - quite a few manufacturers are starting to manufacture screens with this res including Samsung and Panasonic. It is also being supported by a lot of AV receivers. I believe 4K is used because this is the res used in the production equipment. Given that most digital media is moving to download/stream - we might see a quicker adoption of 4K than in the past where digital media relied upon physical media. The same sort of revolution is happening in the audio world with higher res tracks/albums becoming more available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4ttm4son Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 What would be the point? The only reason ever: Because you can This 4k stuff sounds good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Can't see it being adopted anytime soon to be honest, people are still upgrading to HD, and how many of us stream tv or films? Very few in the overall scheme of things. HD is only recently becoming useful, it's only a couple of years or so that we've actually been able to watch HD tv on our HD tv's properly, and as I mentioned above, we're still only watching in 720 most of the time, so if we aren't using the full potential of 1080p, what would be the point of 4k? I'm not saying it won't look great btw, but I can't see it being adopted by people for quite some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
m4ttm4son Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 How long since 1080p came out? I know I was looking at the with lust over two years ago and, as you say, we're only starting to have HD channels and BluRays etc. Don't see why there can't be a few TVs out there with higher definition output and then the next PS4 and XBox upscaling BluRays to this definition. Are BluRay discs at capacity or is there room for more detail? To enable streaming at this level, the broadband capacity needs sorting out. I can't even get iPlayer to stream HD well (though I think it's more BBCs problem than my bandwidth TBH) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 How much more detail do you need in a film/TV? I'd say the current HD is spot on - can't see why more detail is important really, HD already looks like a photo to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveP Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Is there even a 4G network yet? Yes, but not in this country. (Ignoring test networks). But it will be really big very soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
garcon magnifique Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 First live 4G network is in Sweden I think? Scary fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pingpongpo Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 The beauty of shooting in 4K is that you can do so much more in post production and still be able to output at 'HDTV' format. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 There must be a law of diminishing return though, my parents (neither of whom have particularly bad eyesight) can't tell much difference between SD and HD anyway, so surely there must come a point where constantly upping the resolution becomes pointless? What is the resolution of the human eye? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 how many of us stream tv or films? Very few in the overall scheme of things. I'd argue that isn't true. BBC iPlayer alone streams 137 million programmes per month. Those stats are split further by the fact those streams are from 14 million unique visitors in the UK alone. So, that's a quarter of the population streaming TV programmes every month. And that's just iPlayer. You then have ITV Player, C4, Netflix, etc. The latest stat I had to hand for combined media was from November 2011 - but it said that over 19 million UK residents were watching streamed TV or movies regularly. That's not 'very few'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 It is compared to how many people just watch tv normally via Sky or whatever. Streaming a show you've missed isn't quite the same as 'watching tv' streamed either. And certainly not in HD either, I'd bet most of the stuff on iplayer is lower definition than SD, it's certainly very very poor quality through my Wii or Playstation. Ultimately you are correct though, that will be the way things go, once the infrastructure is in place to support it properly, which is still a long long way off for the majority of the population. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NewNiceMrMe Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) Is it though? It's a third of the UK population and it's growing month on month. I'm not arguing it is less than those watching TV via other means, just saying that it isn't a very small figure either - in fact I'd say a third is a very large amount. Streaming is streaming, whichever way you look at it. You didn't say "LIVE" TV! We've started using Netflix too and our consumption of iPlayer on our main TV has increased dramatically cos it has one of those SmartHub thingy functions. Works really neatly (though volume control on iPlayer through it seems either very quiet or very loud for reasons I can't quite figure out). We're bigger consumer of digital media than most, without question, but (and I know you've said this, I'm just agreeing with it) the growth of consumption is certainly very apparent now. iPlayer is at 720p as I understand it. Could be wrong. Edited March 8, 2012 by MrMe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinspark Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 How is it a 2S when the screen resolution has doubled, it supports 4G networks, has a new processor, a bigger battery (hence the slightly increased size albeit with the same battery life) and a host of other new features? They're hardly what you'd call small additions, surely? Essentially the same form factor - and a lot of the extra functions are going to come with software, aren't they? Anyway - if you look at the move from iPhone 3g to 3gs - that was a massive step in terms of technology, but the form factor was the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tipex Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 iPlayer is at 720p as I understand it. Could be wrong. It certainly isn't when I watch it via my Playstation or Wii, it might be on a laptop, computer or ipad but I don't watch tv on those, because I have big tv for watching stuff! The picture quality is frankly awful when streamed by any of those devices to be honest, I have a fast (relatively for the UK) Internet connection, and the picture is far worse than say, Sky SD channels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twinspark Posted March 8, 2012 Report Share Posted March 8, 2012 Thing is, you can have the source material at any resolution you like - but when you then compress it to be delivered over the 'net, you may as well be sending out 480p. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now