So iPad 2 will have a 2048x1536 Retina Display?

So iPad 2 will have a 2048x1536 Retina Display?

Looks like iBooks 1.1 includes references to x2 iPad graphics, shorthand for Retina Display graphics that would peg iPad 2's screen at technology-bending 2048x1536. That's precisely double the current iPad's 1024x768 in both dimensions, and precisely what Apple did with iPhone 4 last year. (Doubling the pixels is the easiest way to keep existing apps functional and prevent fragmentation and mass developer angst.)

Doubling iPad 2's resolution would result in a 260dpi display, not as sharp as iPhone 4's 326dpi. As we've said many times, Retina Display is dependent on distance and most people hold an iPad further away than they do an iPhone. So 260dpi should be effectively similar if not the same.

But 2048x1536 is more pixels than the $999 Apple 27" LED Cinema Display, in a smaller area, and in a device that with all other components -- including the rumored Apple A5 chipset powerful enough to drive that many pixels -- starting at half the price.

I'm still not sure that technology exists at that price point. I am getting slightly weary of the back and forth rumors though, so hopefully Apple announces their iPad 2 event and Steve Jobs puts this to rest for once and for all.

Meanwhile, speculate away. If Apple puts their mind and supply chain to it could they get this miracle of glass done?

[@StroughtonSmith, @Xuzz, Rafeed.me, via MacRumors, thanks Jgriesman!]

Rene Ritchie

Editor-in-Chief of iMore, co-host of Iterate, Debug, Review, Vector, and MacBreak Weekly podcasts. Cook, grappler, photon wrangler. Follow him on Twitter and Google+.

More Posts

 

0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...
0
loading...

← Previously

TiPb Picks of the Week

Next up →

Rupert Murdoch's iPad-only newspaper The Daily delayed.

Reader comments

So iPad 2 will have a 2048x1536 Retina Display?

88 Comments
Sort by Rating

Reading nerd speculation is fun but the fact is we wont know for certain until it's leaked I mean announced. But if it IS iPadx2 then Apple not Moto get my $$$.

Not the point. The point is the others are incompetent if they can't even keep up with the less important stuff.

Well, no...but if Apple can acquire components twice as spec'd as the competition, and keep performance/battery life constant despite pushing 4x the pixels, and keep the price point the same, then, yeah, the competition is in trouble.
I'd be surprised if they can pull it off so soon - but I'd buy one.

id be more than supprised, iv got a LED samsung 40" TV and thatsonly` kicking out 1920x1080 so to have any tablet with a better res in a screen under a quarter the size (diagonally) id be speechless (an that dont happen often lol)

The iPhone 4 still had the highest res for a phone, and it's only at 3.5". If someone can do this, it's Apple.
The iPad is just waiting for competition now, Apple don't strive well without competition.

I'm still having a hard time seeing how they could do it. It just seems unpossible. If they can pull it off, though, without raising the price significantly, it would definitely blow all the other tablets (including eBook readers like Kindle and Nook) out of the water.

First, Apple won't raise prices on any of their products, even updates to products. They always start with large margins and bring their prices down with time, if anything.
Second, I too am highly skeptical of these rumors, not because I have any kind of insight into Apple or have they work. Rather, I just think modern technology cannot support this in the consumer market. A display that size would require a LOT of horsepower to power it appropriately, muchness to Apple's especially high standards. I just don't think that technology exists that would allow this for less than thousands of dollars. I don't care how innovative Apple is. They aren't magicians.

You know, I've been thinking about this "conventional wisdom" about Apple always sticking to its price points, but I'm not so sure Apple will stick to that here. I think they have a $399 point they could have an iPad model at. Maybe even $299. This puts even more downward price pressure on all other "tablets" coming out, squeezes all the profit out of competitors.
The tablet market is new, so maybe Apple really does want a big big piece of the pie here. An iPad with 16 GB storage, 1 GHz A4 and 1024x768 screen is well within reason for them. (Just think about how much more money it would be to take the 8 GB iPod touch guts, at $229, and then outfit it with iPad screen, chassis and battery).

$399 or $299 is simply not happening. First, Apple bragged about how cheap the iPad was at it's current price point when it was announced. Jobs said that they had really worked to get the price down that low, so I don't see any reason to lower it, especially how well it is selling now. Next, at $299 or $399 Apple is starting to get into iTouch range. Apple does not want to mix these price ranges because they currently make a large profit off the iTouch, and would make very little profit off an iPad at $299 or even $399.

like they do with iphones. they might make the last generation (only one existing) iPad 400$ and start the new line at 500 ( if they are sticking to the same price line )

The technology is already exist. That's what displayport for. TV with much higher resolution than today HDTV is exist. The problem is that many tech company don't want to adopt the tech or bring the tech to the market yet. The same is true for iPad and iPhone. Apple move ahead of the competition because seeing this opportunity and willing to take risk to bring the tech to the market. Not only they bring it to the market, but also with correct go-to market strategy, implementation and price point.

Nice! I suppose 260dpi, being below 300dpi, the self-imposed "retina standard" of Steve Jobs at the introduction of iPhone 4 technically falls 40dpi short. lol That's plenty close enough for me, though, and obviously, they will likely keep the LED-backed IPS LCD technology and with that, my own personal appetite for super hi-resolution, high-quality displays will have been met, and then some. :-D Can we do the iMac next? 5120x2880 at 27"? Please?

My god. This would explain the slow rollout rumors we have been hearing of sales being restricted to US Apple retail stores for the first three months.
But can they do this to the entire line? Or perhaps for just one high-end model with a steep price tag? Seems a screen like this is going to increase the price, which would give the other tablet makers a foothold.

All the obvious stuff that\'s imssing on the iPad at present, such as support for Flash, a camera etc. will magically appear on the next version, prompting people to upgrade and to convert the fence-sitters into customers.They did this on the iPhone and they\'ll do it on the iPad

As for the "competition"...There isn't any. Have you guys played around with that Samsung tablet? A then there's RIM with its 7"Playbook (and with that, it has less than half the screen size of the current 9.7" iPad) ...Playbook! LOL...At least they named it appropriately. According to RIM, it will take them until summer to come up with it and then, they're only going with Sprint's network, at least initially, as is the case with a certain other lame-a$$ tablet by Samsung.
Really? Little Sprint, U.S.A. will be the only audience and that is supposed to be competition for Apple's worldwide audience and immediate availability (come on, even when they were doing waiting lists, it took less than a couple of weeks) and that was only the case in the beginning. Besides, RIM and Co. would love to have a problem like not being able to make enough because everyone is eating them up as they come in.
And where's Microsoft these days? Not that I really care but once they actually follow through on anything resembling a tablet without canceling their supposed product a few months later, its efforts will likely fall short of anything substantial, just as its Windows Phone 7 line has been deemed a disappointment by LG this week...
This is an Apple world we live in and from what I've seen at CES, with the biggest player not even showing up, it will only get increasingly difficult for anybody else to come up with a consumer-worthy alternative to the iPad, especially with the 2nd iteration of the iPad setting the bar even higher and with that, even farther out-of-reach for the so-called non-existent "competition".

The Blackberry Playbook is being released in March as wifi only with 3g models to be released in the summer. That's the announcement that Sprint made. Since Rim sells Blackberries to every carrier im guessing that they will follow that model with the playbook. Sprint probably hlmade the announcement at CES because they really didn't have much else to talk about.

Firstly, the Samsung Galaxy Tab is available on all carriers! Secondly, the BlackBerry PlayBook will be available as a Wi-Fi model as well.
In terms of screen size, the smaller tablets out there are far nicer to use, and are not a brick like the original iPad. As a former Apple employee, I can tell you now, with the next iPad, that Apple will either go with a high resolution display and hike the price right up, or stay with the same display and just add a camera or two, and put in a micro-HDMI port (finally!).
But as always, the one thing people forget about is iOS. I'd get an "iPad 2" if iOS genuinely gained new and useful functionality, instead of wireless printing!! How about multi-tasking Apple?! And no, not "fast-app switching!"

Guys, it's obvious that the iPad will have a higher resolution than the old one, but it will NOT be 2048×1536.
It will be more likely to be 1440×1080, which would be a smart idea because the number 1080 is already ingrained in the mind of the consumer as being HD.

It's 2048x1536 or bust. It won't be higher, and it won't be lower. This is APPLE! This is Apple's userbase we're talking about. They'll notice and hate janky upscaled bitmaps, and think it is a terrible user experience. It's almost OCD for a lot of folks.

If it is 2048x1536, I have to say "Friggin' WOW, with friggin' LASERS!"
Like with the iPhone 4 display, I'm skeptical until Apple announces it.

The way I see it, tablets are the single most important factor in winning over the next generation of personal computer users. The tech has finally caught up with the vision. Apple knows they need to take over this market in Microsoftian fashion or risk becoming a niche player ala OS X. Often, a tech company will sell a product at a significant loss, with the knowledge that it will be made up is software sales. Considering the juggernaut of cash which is the App Store, Apple could safely sell this beast at a loss and make up for it in ITunes sales.
Right now the hulking behemoth that is Android is pounding at the door. Jobs may see a calculated risk as the factor that will male even the most hardcore of Android fans swallow their fanboy hats and go for the best tablet around. I know loss leaders go against every bone in Jobs body, but we are talking about the golden ticket of tech. He is probably thinking a lot about his legacy and the future of his company after he is gone. A commanding market dominance would cement the future of his friends and employees at the company he built.

If there's one thing I'm sure of, it's that Apple will keep their price points the same or lower. They're already making less profit on the iPad than they typically do on their other devices so I can't see a device with mind-blowing specs like these being that cheap. I think the display resolution will stay the same, but they will improve the display in some other way.

I donot know about this maybe they are testing/trying to making it work because if they could they would do so.
First of all I thunk that Apple will make something up inorder to say RetinaDisplay.
I would like to have a smaller iPad not much smaller but engh to have a higher DPI.
Also iBooks is not part if iOS, so one thought is maybe Appleis making an externa display that could be used for macs and the iPad.

Hey guys, greetings from Korea. One of my friend works in LGD( LG Display) and he told me a secret that he witnessed LCD manufacturing line and it had title 'apple 9.7" XXX resolution XX QA improvement' He put the actual resolution to secret but just told that what I think is true...

lol my other half helps Apple with their online marketing! no seriously.
She said that apple will be holding a conference on the 1st Feb, regarding new releases. She cant tell me no more though :(
One thing i heard is that the iPad will be reduced in price to clear out extra stock as one version of the iPad did not sell as well as Apple thought! So if you wanna buy an iPad i'd wait for a few weeks ;)

The SoC to power this high resolution display is not the issue here. A Apple A5 with e.g. 1GHz dual-core Cortex-A9 with a 200MHz dual-core SGX543 and 512MB-1GB LPDDR2 RAM on a 64-bit bus can run this without a problem and wouldn't cost much more @40nm than the A4 and it's predecessor. And the display itself can be built too, even in high quantities.
The ONLY real issue here is the COST of a 9.7" 2048x1536 LCD panel and Apple's standard high profit margins. But this is a tablet land-grab right now, so maybe lower margins are seen as acceptable for now by Apple's management.

I would love to see that... But it makes little sense for two reasons:

  1. Cost - How could they get a display like that and still sell for $499-599? I don't see it. If they were able to, I guess it would be an admission that they really they really overprice desktop displays.
  2. Resolution - more resolution than 99% of desktop screens, in a 10" package... Severe overkill.

It makes more sense for a product a year from now, the iPad 3.

"It makes more sense for a product a year from now, the iPad 3."
If even then. I'd bet we won't see displays of that resolution on consumer 10" screens for five years. There's no way Apple is rolling that out for iPad 2. Who really needs better than 720p resolution on a tablet screen, right now?

From researching LCD and Plasma tv's for a while before purchasing one I
LEarned that the human eye can't distguinsh between 720p and 1080p under 42" screen. Why on earth would apple want to blow past 1080p and drive up cost on a 10" screen then ? Doesn't make sense.

Human eye can definitely see the difference between those resolutions BUT only if its not too far off. If' you'll re read the same research(s) you're talking about, I'm sure you'll find them saying the exact same thing too. Most of us watch TV from atleast 8-10 feet away and as you go further away from that point, your eyes wont see the difference between because its too far off now. So in a real world situation, the difference bewteen 1080p and 720p is mostly negligible unless you have a 50+ inch TV.
But we use our ipads in our hands. So it wont ever be more than 2 feet away or maybe 3 feet if you decide to put it in a stand to watch a movie or something. At that distance, a normal human eye can definitely see the difference between iPad's current resolution and the rumored double resolution.
I suggest you check out the iPhone 4 (or iPod 4) and compare it with any of the last gen iDevice. New iphones have double the resolution and its not just noticeable, it's really useful too especially for text based content which looks like it was printed on real paper instead of a pixel based display.

IMNS is correct, and here's a TLDR version for you, that distinction isn't relative to screen size but viewing distance. That 42" number came from research of a specific viewing distance. As the distance decreases your ability to see the definition increases.

It will all come down to processing power. What will iPad 2 have. The rumor is the A5, so if it has that power, 2048x1536 is a possibility. All the tech sites state Retina Display will be Apple's buzz word for 2011 on all their products. Guess we will see.

BTW: 2048×1536 is not more pixels than the 2560x1440 as seen on the 27" displays.
Nevertheless, if Apple will release such a retina display, it will be much more expensive then the standard display. Why not make an "iPad HD" besides an "iPad"? You'll get what you are willing to pay for.
Of course the problem of CPU/graphics power would require two CPU architectures, too. It probably won't be a wise decision of Apple to make the iPad faster than the iPad HD. With the same CPU/graphics, that would be the case.

My guess is that if Apple does release the iPad 2 with a retina display, they will split the product lines like with the iPhone. So the baseline wi-fi models won't have retina display and in fact would be the current gen models, maybe with a price drop or capacity bump. The the new models get introduced just to the high end 3G/CDMA models, maybe with optional subsidy prices if you choose a subscription through your carrier.

I don't think you all really understand... it's just like before OS 4.0 was released they found apps that had graphic specs for 2X the resolution. This higher resolution iPad is a done deal just like the Verizon iPhone was with all the leaks months ahead! Apple has once again lead the pack in technology and innovation. Hell, the mobile phone industry still hasn't surpassed the iPhone 4's resolution! I would bet the house, car and the farm on it! I guarantee you... when they announce the iPad at twice the resolution, you all can return to this blog and my comment and see that it was the truth!

I have no clue whether they got the processor to handle it. I remember being blown away at the iphone 4's proposed resolution and they did it somehow. So I wouldn't be surprised if they could do it.
It just seems out of character for Apple to include this so quickly on the ipad when they could easily hold off on it for an ipad 3. We'll have android tablet makers to thank for it for pressuring apple. And it would keep the ipad far ahead of the rest. The only thing is, they're far ahead already.

Who cares about the screen. My IPad doesn't have adobe. I can't wait for the Blackberry Playbook. Dual camera and dual core processor. Multitasking. One of the best tablet on the market. 4G speed too too much to list. IPad is done with no adobe on it.

All I know is one thing thing. This is a segment Steve J. wants to win. He said it himself when he introduced te IPad. "this is a segment we are in to win."
With that I believe this "Rumour" has legs to stand on. If they want to win this segment then Apple may be willing to not make as much money as they usually do on a product.
And for some reason when he said in it to win it. I don't think he was talking about just profit margin. This IPad has been his dream for many many years and he wants to leave a stamp on the computer industry like no other with this one.
So I believe the rumor could definitely be true and that Apple is willing to make some sacrifices to ensure they "win" the segment. This type of resolution will be very hard for the Rest of the industry to match.
"For me" the retina display on the iPhone is mind blowing and one if it's biggest draws, I'm sure the same will be fir the iPad.

One thing is the fact that one of the most prevalent ivenntices for making use of your credit cards is a cash-back or perhaps rebate provision. Generally, you'll get 1-5% back with various buying. Depending on the credit cards, you may get 1% back again on most expenses, and 5% again on expenditures made in convenience stores, filling stations, grocery stores along with member merchants'.

Apple does not make the displays them selves. If they have it, an android phone/tablet manufacture more than likely makes it. Samsung..LG..or so forth. That pretty much means that the android and or RIM tabs will pretty much have the same screens. The screens the manufactures build for there own android devices. Apple is just a purchaser not a supplier.

True but Apple is notorious for buying displays in large numbers and bringing down the prices by doin so causing shortages for the rest of the industry. This is also why they are able to introduce new technologies at last years prices (see iPhone 4).
Your statement also holds true for the iPhone 4 but "I" have yet to see a "retina" display on any other phone except the iPhone. If there is one out there it has not gained the popularity of the iPhone. So Apple is doing something that is causing the phone manufacturers to incorporate retina type of displays on their phones.
I would suspect it has something to do with the things I mentioned in my first paragraph.

*Causing the phone manufactures NOT to incorporate retina type of displays on their phones.

Exactly. Obviously, the manufacturers know what Apple's doing, yet they continue to crank out a zillion different models of cheap handsets. Leadership and determination is what sets Apple apart. Even teh Google doesn't have a solid vision on Android and takes a half-arsed interest in it.

Very good points.
If I recall was Super Amoled not Apples first choice of display technology for the iphone4? Then Samsung decided to hold onto them for there own Galaxy S phone line. Which created a shortage and then prompted Apple to head in the IPS LCD technology?

I have never heard that super amoled was Apples first choice but that doesn't mean it wasn't. If it was and it didn't have for the reasons you stated, then we were better off anyway, we were introduced to "retina" displays.

Bah. Samsung's Super AMOLED screens had a few negatives compared to an IPS display. Samsung's AMOLED screens are great for color, but suck at text and line display because of the PenTile matrix (RGBG) sub-pixel arrangement they use. Text rendering on them are ugly compared to LCDs.
Apple made the right choice going with a high density IPS.

@ webvex - "I’m still having a hard time seeing how they could do it. It just seems unpossible."
I think there are several ways Apple could handle the cost of a (presumably more expensive) high-resolution "Retina" screen:

  1. Raise the price of iPad 2 models above their iPad 1 equivalents. This would reduce demand, depending on how much the price were increased. But it would maintain Apple's profit margins.
  2. Keep the same 3-tiered pricing scheme and same price points, then add a fourth ultra-high-end model at the top. Just like the "best" option for buying Macs. That model's higher margin would help offset the reduced margins for the less-expensive models. Historically, Apple's low-end and high-end models have tended to sell best. Not necessarily the mid-range models.
  3. Keep iPad 2 models at the exact same price points that iPad 1 sold for, and don't add a new ultra-high-end model. Lower margins for Apple across the board, but it would be near-impossible for any competitor to match iPad 2's screen resolution at a similar price. Lower margins but bigger sales numbers than in scenario 1.

Of course, it's also possible that Apple could continue to sell the iPad 1. If so, it's likely that Apple would only ship the low-end wi-fi-only model at $100 less than last year. That does two things: competes with any cheaper competing pads, and lets Apple amortize the old design over two years instead of just one.

If they do it then I think #3 would be their option. It goes against their normal business strategy in the short term but in the long term it would be business as usual.
Again this is a segment Apple is in to win and they want to define that segment for the future. I think they will do what it takes to get a large jump on the rest of the industry.
People say Apple has small incremental increases with their product updates. To me the only small increase was from 3G to 3GS. I think Apple is going to be aggressive with the IPad, very aggressive.

Also the halo affect comes into play. If apple produces a much better iPad with the same pricing as the current version, people will want it and want it bad. When these same people go to upgrade their desk tops, they may be inclined to with a Mac, thus generating more sales overall for Apple.
We already see the iPhone is having a halo affect, I'm sure this will hold true forthe iPad.

No no no. The improvement from the 3G to the 3GS will be the biggest relative change in CPU performance that you'll ever see. Bank on it. The 3GS had a 2x real-world performance improvement for basically all CPU ops over the 3G.
You will never see that level of CPU performance improvement again. Never. The current transition from 1 GHz level Cortex-A8 devices to 1 GHz dual-core Cortex-A9 will be pretty big too, but relatively, it won't be as big as the change from 400 MHz ARM11 devices to 600 MHz Cortex-A8 devices.

I'm not so sure about that. A 1 GHz dual-core Cortex-A9 (and Cortex-A9 itself is said to be at least 20% faster per clock than Cortex-A8) with a 200 MHz dual-core SGX543, LPDDR2 RAM etc. could also result in an overall 2x performance improvement over the previous generation. And if Apple takes full advantage of some of the new SoC features as well (OpenCL), the improvements could be even bigger.

@ craig - "If I recall was Super Amoled not Apples first choice of display technology for the iphone4?"
Only rumor sites said anything about AMOLED or Super AMOLED for iPhone 4. And we all know how accurate they are.

@ craig - "That pretty much means that the android and or RIM tabs will pretty much have the same screens. The screens the manufactures build for there own android devices. Apple is just a purchaser not a supplier."
And none of the Android manufacturers or RIM will get the same prices Apple can get. Apple will corner the 10" touchscreen market they way they cornered the flash memory market. They get the best prices on flash memory because they're the world's largest consumer of flash ram.
The same thing will happen with touchscreen displays. Apple will get the best prices because they make the largest purchases. All other pad manufacturers will be left to fight over the remaining supply. They'll need to out-bid each other, which drives their prices up and their margins down.
That's life in the big city.

That's amazing, we are in the middle of a revolutions.
The desktops and even the laptops are going to vanish from the world.
The world in 5 years from now is going to be very different from what we know : smart phones and tablets.
Goodbye old computers.

I think you guys are missing the resolution. I think personally that the new iPad will have double the resolution of the current iPhone and not the current iPad. That is a more doable IMO

That wouldn't work very well for existing iPad apps and would be even further away from Retina quality. It's double or nothing.

Only for those that make specialized iPad apps. For the huge number of deva that simply make a new aspect layout for there app and inclide it with the phone app that would end up being more of a godsend for them to have the same aspect ratio.

It's funny to see people say things like "Apple really wanted... But had to...." and "Steve Jobs true vision is...". Everything is speculation and guesses by sites which barely understand the technology they are writing about.
As I see it, there are 2 ways to hide your upcoming products: leak no information or leak tons of contradictory bits of info and watch the blog sites dance.

Nope. Keeping the current aspect ratio of the iPad is the right thing to do. Making a universal app is pretty easy.
The next iPad will have 2.4x the processor, 2.2x the polygong rate, 4x the fill rate and a 2048x1536 display. This will keep the 50,000 iPad apps very happy.

It's going to be double or nothing, so to speak. :D And what the heck are some of you guys talking about when you say "overkill" or "unnecessary" when it comes to these super high-res. displays?
I guess the iPhone 4's display is overkill as well under that theory? Well, it isn't. Open the same webpage in Safari on both the iPhone 4 and the iPad. Then take a look at text at first. Unless you're blind, have really bad vision or are generally not very perceptive, you will look in awe at how the iPhone 4 blows the iPad away with its astonishingly crisp and razor sharp text. Then go to a page on your springboard and view the specially-crafted and so-called Retina icons and compare them to those on an iPad. Again, night-and-day different (as in better), if you're into high-quality screens as I am. Even the 2560x1440 resolution on my 27" iMac displays text noticeably "worse" than the 960x640 3.5" screen on my iPhone 4.
And this is a valid comparison being that the iMac, iPad, and the iPhone 4 all have LED backlight and IPS premium display technology where you can look from virtually any angle and the colors all stay the same and text does not lose its crispness.
Apple has really ruined me for any products and devices that do not have these ridiculously ultra-high quality and not-even-the-sky-is-the-limit features and specs.
As far as pricing is concerned, I seriously doubt that Steve Jobs will go on stage to introduce the 5th iPhone in June and during his delivery of Apple's (company) updates will brag about how they are loss-leading the way at 100 iPad 2's per second. "Whoop, another second went by and we just lost another couple hundred k'sy. Not to worry, to the stockholders in the audience. This is part of our new strategy where we rely on our 40% cut every time our developers sell another 99c app. It's just phenomenal." (insert multiple additional superlatives) lol

Screen IS the most important part than the internals. I use a 30' 2560 x 1600 res super ips panel with my desktop and nothing beats it. It shames 1080p panels all day long. If they can put that res in a 10 inch pad a 1/4 inch thicken will be impressed and I don't impress easily. If they can do this I may just pick one up when before I thought My iPhone 4 was plenty.

I would not be surprised to see a retina display on the next iPad.
I would not be surprised to see it across the entire iPad line, considering that Apple is reportedly helping fund new LCD factories of two electronics suppliers.
Perhaps the margin will be lower initially, but in the long run, when you get enough people hooked on iCandy iCrack, there's no going back. Lower margins will be made up in the future. (There will be no lost-leaders from Apple, sorry.)
That said, what I speculate will happen is there will be (1) an /iPad G1/ (2010 model, 16K only), (2) an /iPad G2/ with Face Time cameras and all new goodies but a current-gen (or slightly-bumped) A4 processor, and (3) an /iPad G2HD/ with a retina display plus a souped-up dual core A5 with dual/quad core graphics (with a bit larger battery, too). This way Apple gets to sell a model at $100 less than the current price, at the current price, and at probably a $200 premium over current prices. In 2012, then I expect the HD will standard when there are factories in place to support the demand.
Myself, I would buy the G2HD. Hope they get 64GB models. I'd pay up to $999 for that.

Well if Apple dose not come out with a  Retina Display, and 4g I'll just will have to stop expecting it, and go for the Galaxy tab. Ps it would be like Steve to put out an Ipad 3 with 4g and not a Retina Display, than turn around in six months time and come out with an iPad 4 I'm sick and tired of his BS. 

Having read this I believed it was very enlightening.
I appreciate you taking the time and energy to put
this content together. I once again find myself
spending a significant amount of time both reading and
leaving comments. But so what, it was still worth it!
Take a look at my web page - iphone 5 blog

And so I need a laptop under atleast $700 but in a different colour some other compared
to silver or black (preferably blue,red or white).
Does that exist? Where can I get it? Even thoug tis cheap it can't such as fall apart or perhaps definitely not work to something. Should I wait until boxing day ? I am thus confuzzled..
Also visit my web blog: Marcie Whisnant @ best-laptops-under-500.net