My question is, what is a "Retina Display?" And, has it simply become a marketing term Apple is using only to sell more product? Also, What will they call the "new iPad" when its not new anymore?

My question is, what is a "Retina Display?" And, has it simply become a marketing term Apple is using only to sell more product? Also, What will they call the "new iPad" when its not new anymore?

• A greater density of the pixels that make up the iPhone's screen
  
• Higher contrast ratio than previous models for brighter whites and deeper blacks
  
• In-Plane Switching (IPS) technology to improve viewing angles
  
• Chemically treated glass over the screen and LED backlighting to improve the quality of the image
  

Right, Those are some of the features. But, I remember somewhere along the line that Steve Job's deemed 300ppi as the magic number where, according to him, the eye cannon detect the impurities, or something along those lines. So when I see a sub-300ppi screen being branded as a Retina Display, it raises question, in my mind. And, that's assuming any of the claims were true to begin with. (I dont doubt the at screen looks good, just wondering if Apples definition of Retina Display changes to suit their marketing needs.)

Right. I wouldn't say Retina display is a marketing term though.

Sorry bro, but the term "retina" display is all marketing. nothing more nothing less. This is just another example of how apple distinguishes its products from the competition. No different than at&t updating iphones to show 4g instead of H+ on the top of the screen. I have seen so many people with iphones 4s running around talking about how at&t unlocked 4g on the phone when its the same damn hspa+ they always had. Its all marketing while trying to be different from the next guy.

0.3 MP camera on the iphone 2? Why even put that on there when I can draw a picture of higher quality with a crayon.

All joking aside, nice writeup. I still can't see myself buying one, but it's nice to see they raised the bar a bit for the next generation of tablet screens, processors and GPUs.

I actually bought the new iPad, and it is my first tablet. The name "retina" display is marketing, but the screen is still very impressive. Even my friend, who has an ipad two, was impressed. You can tell the difference, and it is not like ATT changing their 3g logo to 4g on the 4s.

I have to disagree with you on your first three points of what you dislike about it.

I have a 4s, and siri is very gimmicky. I wish it was able to open apps and be better integrated into nonapple apps, plus it seems to be down a lot. If they improved it, then I would like to see it on the iPad, but I doubt that will happen until we see it lose the beta tag. Great concept, but poor delivery so far.

I believe a LED flash would be useless on the iPad. I feel like if you need flash it would be smarter to use your phone. It would be easier to take pictures, and I believe the quality would be a heck of a lot better. Plus you look silly taking pictures on an iPad. I think the camera boost was more for video chat than actually taking pictures.

I can understand wanting a different looking ipad, but the ipad is still very nice, plus it is not like they have many ways they can change the style. I think the iPad will be similar to their laptop/desktop line in that it will stay similar for a few refreshes with just the internals and screen improved.

I actually bought the new iPad, and it is my first tablet. The name "retina" display is marketing, but the screen is still very impressive. Even my friend, who has an ipad two, was impressed. You can tell the difference, and it is not like ATT changing their 3g logo to 4g on the 4s.I have to disagree with you on your first three points of what you dislike about it. I have a 4s, and siri is very gimmicky. I wish it was able to open apps and be better integrated into nonapple apps, plus it seems to be down a lot. If they improved it, then I would like to see it on the iPad, but I doubt that will happen until we see it lose the beta tag. Great concept, but poor delivery so far. I believe a LED flash would be useless on the iPad. I feel like if you need flash it would be smarter to use your phone. It would be easier to take pictures, and I believe the quality would be a heck of a lot better. Plus you look silly taking pictures on an iPad. I think the camera boost was more for video chat than actually taking pictures.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on these two points.

Siri is supposed to be a "personal assistant" that is synonymous with Apple's high-end image. Why wouldn't you want this on a tablet? Especially their "New iPad"

As far as the camera, the rear facing camera is absolutely there for taking pictures. The camera has the same MP rating as the Galaxy Nexus, and it is higher quality than a lot of older or low end smartphones. There should have been a flash on there. Plus the flash could act as a flashlight with an app.

You say that you look funny taking pictures with the iPad, how funny would you look video chatting "walkie talkie style" with the camera on the back of the iPad. That's why there is the front facing "face time camera".

You can tell the difference, and it is not like ATT changing their 3g logo to 4g on the 4s.

I guess this part is in response to what I said. I wasn't talking about whether there are actual differences or not, I am just talking about marketing terms specifically. Marketing terms grab attention away from the competition so even though at&t changed the symbol from H+ to 4g, most users will probably swear that their service was suddenly upgraded when in reality it wasn't. AT&T can market their iphone 4s as the only 4g version available. which gives them an advantage over verizon and sprint.

As far as the display on the new ipad, quite frankly its friggin amazing. I was stunned when I saw how beautiful it was and I hope the competition comes out with tablets with similar resolutions soon enough and guess what, when that happens most consumers will still think that the ipad is better because of the term "retina" display versus ultra hd screen or whatever the competition will call it.

Right. I wouldn't say Retina display is a marketing term though.

Its 90% marketing term at the very least bit...sorry but gotta disagree with you here.

Like Ben stated, when you first have a devices labeled as "Retina Display" b/c of its ppi and then offer a new device with less PPI still naming it "Retina" but trying to toss on the whole "...if you hold it at X distance" angle you loose the scientific validity of the actual thing.

There is a reason why the scientific side of things have never agreed with Apple's term Retina display as shown here:

http://www.pcworld.c...ay_updated.html

Now I'm not saying the display itself isn't amazing, but the term itself "Retina" is pure marketing....simple as that.

I am thinking about grabbing a Blackberry Playbook for $200. OS 2.0 with Android support makes it a pretty solid device. I cannot see paying $500-600 for a tablet.

I am thinking about grabbing a Blackberry Playbook for $200. OS 2.0 with Android support makes it a pretty solid device. I cannot see paying $500-600 for a tablet.

I agree, Duffman, and I think the PlayBook looks good. However, what do you think about the rumored Nexus tablet that is supposed to come out this summer? Its supposed to be in the $150-$250 range. Might make for a great first tablet for me. I'm anxious to see/hear more about the Nexus tab.

I am thinking about grabbing a Blackberry Playbook for $200. OS 2.0 with Android support makes it a pretty solid device. I cannot see paying $500-600 for a tablet.

It's very tempting. As Ben said, I am really interested to see the specs on the Nexus tablet. If it isn't at least on par with the PlayBook, I might go for the PlayBook and wait for the 10 inch Nexus that is also rumored...