WSJ: iPad 3 coming in early 2012 with 2048×1536 display

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that Apple is well on its way to trial production of the next-generation iPad, which could start in October. The report says Apple has already ordered many of the core components for the new tablet, and it then drops this little bomblet:

The next generation iPad is expected to feature a high resolution display – 2048 by 1536 compared with 1024 by 768 in the iPad 2 – and Apple’s suppliers have already shipped small quantities of components for the sampling of the iPad 3. Suppliers said Apple has placed orders for a 9.7-inch screen device.

A higher-res version of the iPad has long been rumored, but this may be the clearest indicator yet that such a device is imminent.

The WSJ report cites a component supplier who says Apple “has already placed orders for parts for about 1.5 million iPad 3s in the fourth quarter.” Although production efforts may start soon, the product’s official launch isn’t expected until “early 2012.”

Wow. That’s soon enough that I may skip those $99 TouchPads and just save up for the next big thing.

Comments closed
    • rephlex
    • 8 years ago

    I hear the new iPad will be 30% more absorbent than the current model.

    • Anarchist
    • 8 years ago

    ehh … I’ll wait for nintendo to out their version of tablet.

    • indeego
    • 8 years ago

    More impressive than the resolution is that they will likely be aiming for 10+ hours battery with this display+ faster processor+probably better camera. I hate Apple to the core (heh) but I can’t ignore this hardware any longer, this would be truly amazing tech if released at the $500-$600 pricepoint. Such a bummer about the ecosystem and company behind it all.

      • btb
      • 8 years ago

      Yeah, quadcore + 2k resolution is very impressive.

      Its the first apple product i might consider buying with my own hard-earned cash. (Currently have an iphone 4 from work, but no way in hell i would pay the retail price for that if my company wasnt paying for it)

    • d2brothe
    • 8 years ago

    This is the same rumor as last time.

      • indeego
      • 8 years ago

      I think the WSJ is usually on the mark with these rumors however.

        • djgandy
        • 8 years ago

        Yeah, like it was a year ago….

        What the hell does the WSJ know.

          • dashbarron
          • 8 years ago

          A lot with phone tapping.

          • indeego
          • 8 years ago

          [url=http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304370304575152242601774892.html<]March 2010[/url<] (Came true ~9 months later) [url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-09/verizon-iphone-won-t-transmit-data-voice-together-wsj-reports.html<]Oct 2010[/url<] (Came true ~4 months later) Got bored looking. Can you point to rumors they had that didn't come true?

    • blitzy
    • 8 years ago

    hell, it’s about time

      • Mumrik
      • 8 years ago

      I see what you did there Tychus…

      Anyway, DPI in monitors have stagnated for far too long. I kind of hope this is true, if nothing else, then because it could start a resolution arms race for the panel makers.

    • Anvil
    • 8 years ago

    More pixels than your body has room for!

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      them guys are from my town. halifax picnicface, homie.

    • Corrado
    • 8 years ago

    Funny to hear people try and say they can’t do this and be profitable. Didn’t they say there was no way they could sell the original iPad for < $1000 and be profitable?

    • Welch
    • 8 years ago

    Considering that Apple is now able to tout that it is the “Most Valuable” company on the stock market… and is rolling in doe. Its probably safe to bet that they can afford to take a slight hit in profits by selling the iPad3 at a loss. By doing that they would MAKE money because they screw their competitors out of sales, increase the number of users on the iOS. In turn more developers will flock to the iOS since there is a larger user base AND Apple makes off with more cash from the increased app sales.

    Think Microsoft and Xbox 360 😉

    Its easy for them to compete with the “Little Guys” like Acer, Samsung, ect on the tablet range when those little guys can’t afford to lose money. Plus the little guys can’t work together since they themselves are in competition with each other. There is a reason why Google is buying Motorola Mobility. Google wont have to hope that the “Little Guys” (Compared to Apple) can create a device with equal or better hardware to the iPad3 and future versions or one at a competitive price. Google can also afford to loose some money on making the devices in order to retain a user base over would be Apple consumers. Selling the hardware isn’t were the money is, its the advertisement and user base that is dedicated to using the platform in the future by wanting to continue to use the apps they bought. Think about it like buying a DSLR camera, your buying into the camera brand “System” that you own a bunch of lenses for already.

      • sschaem
      • 8 years ago

      10″ android tablet are sold for a profit at ~150$ (suppliers, manufacturer, shipping, resellers) the BOM for a 10″ tablet is well below 120$
      Apple does use higher capacity/quality build material, but that only add ~90$ to the manufacturing cost.

      Apple is not spending more then 50$ for the display upgrade in the ipad3. under 300$ for the ipad3 wifi BOM.
      Remember, Apple wifi model is 500$ !!! 4g will probably carry a 200$ premium for 40$ cost.
      So their gross margin wont fall below 40% for the ipad3 line. Its the suppliers that will get the short end of the Steve stick.

      And if you think MS spend more then 200$ to build an xbox 360, check again.

      ??? Samsung a little guy ? No, the issue is that Apple is the MAFIOSI of the world of electronic. They tax everything on their platform. Developers must give 30% of ALL their income to Apple. Thats where Apple line their pocket with extra revenue.
      Google is no better, but they have to share that revenue with manufacturer.
      My hope is that Windows8 (they do with 7) doesn’t grab developer by the balls and squeeze…
      Microsoft could attract allot of people if they dont play this evil tactic.

        • demani
        • 8 years ago

        Because Microsoft isn’t doing that with Windows Phone 7? Oh wait…

        Microsoft absolutely will be looking to be a toll collector, just as they are looking at pushing SaS in a big way with their hosted Exchange. To expect them to do anything other than is foolish when it is quite profitable for everyone who is doing it. And that’s how Apple can afford $30 OS upgrades: they make it all on the backend. MS would love to have a steadier income stream that isn’t reliant on [i<]their[/i<] applications, but that draws upon [i<]everyone else's[/i<] and that is a smart move from a business standpoint. They make less revenue per windows license, but get more revenue throughout the life of the license. That makes the OS development actually less critical, since it isn't as large (percentage-wise) of their revenue stream.

        • Welch
        • 8 years ago

        Where is your evidence on the “BOM” for the iPad3, Xbox 360 and a “Typcial 10 inch Android tablet (At the time of their production).” Also, where did you get the 30% of all income from Devs goes into Apple’s pockets. Please cite your sources on these points?

        My comment was merely speculation, it looks like your turning your speculation into hard facts. $50.00 to upgrade the monitor, says who?

          • d2brothe
          • 8 years ago

          App store takes a 30% cut and that’s the only way to get native apps on apple devices. The mac app store isn’t the only way to get applications on a mac, but you can bet apple will be pushing it. So yes, they take 30%. They also wanted a 30% cut of all subscription fee’s too. Don’t drink the koolaid my friend.

          Oh and there are plenty of teardown and cost estimations from iSuppli and the like giving the cost of manufacturing the ipad and other tablets.

          • sschaem
          • 8 years ago

          Places like [url<]http://www.ubmtechinsights.com/[/url<] have rated the ipad2 32gig 3G at no more then 270$ for its BOM. Apple make a profit of 460$ for this ipad2 model. Apple also made over a billion of pure profit in the last year from developers paying 30% of all their revenue from the app store. (Check Apple developers web site for details) Not counting all the free marketing and validation all the app creates. Apple is the Vampire Squid of the tech industry.... For example a 1280x700 10.1 screen cost 5$ extra over a 9.7 1024x768 screen. Apple pay <50$ for its current display, they wont have to double the price (extra 50$) to get that extra pixel density. Look at the cash cow the iphone4 is vs the iphone3. Its just ludicrous to think apple will have to pay 460$ to upgrade the display, to the point where they loose money per device. Its a 50$ upgrade at most... They will also save on other components, so the ipad3 BOM wont change that much.

      • demani
      • 8 years ago

      The scary thing is they won’t have to. Apple will find a way to sell them all at a profit (in stark contrast to HP’s unloading and 100mil writedown).

      BTW-anyone know where to get a TouchPad? Beuhler? I’ve been waiting specifically for the hi-res iPad 3 for a reader, but at $100 the TouchPad would have satisfied the craving -potentially until the 4. But alas, it seems HPs inability to plan ahead and foulingthe firesale isn’t working to my favor. Seriously, I can’t even get a notification submission in place? And they want to be an enterprise software company? REALLY?!?

      • KoolAidMan
      • 8 years ago

      [quote<]Selling the hardware isn't were the money is, its the advertisement and user base that is dedicated to using the platform in the future by wanting to continue to use the apps they bought.[/quote<] This is incorrect. The bulk of application sales goes towards the developers and the cost of running iTunes (servers & bandwidth). iTunes has never been a big part of Apple's net revenue. It has always had among the lowest profit margins of what Apple has to offer, about 10%. Hardware has always been where Apple makes their profits. The software ecosystem is what keeps people hooked into iOS devices, you have that correct, but you have the sources of profit reversed. In any case, Apple will profit from their hardware even while it is superior to competing tablet platforms, and it is because they buy huge quantities of components years in advance with the stockpile of cash that they have. Putting massive orders in to component manufacturers means that they can have higher quality components for a lower cost than everyone else.

      • cygnus1
      • 8 years ago

      Apple’s ridiculously large margin on their hardware would like to argue with you on ‘where the money is’

      • Decelerate
      • 8 years ago

      “Its probably safe to bet that they can afford to take a slight hit in profits by selling the iPad3 at a loss. By doing that they would MAKE money because they screw their competitors out of sales, increase the number of users on the iOS. In turn more developers will flock to the iOS since there is a larger user base AND Apple makes off with more cash from the increased app sales. … Selling the hardware isn’t were the money is, its the advertisement and user base that is dedicated to using the platform in the future by wanting to continue to use the apps they bought”

      Those statements prove that you don’t know (or acknowledge) Apple’s business model. You’re selling the razor-blades while Apple concentrates on the razor; the blades are only there to support the razors themselves (ie: HARDWARE).

    • Thue
    • 8 years ago

    The cheapest 2560 x 1440 screen on newegg costs $840. ( [url<]http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=100007617+600012694&QksAutoSuggestion=&ShowDeactivatedMark=False&Configurator=&IsNodeId=1&Subcategory=20&description=&Ntk=&CFG=&SpeTabStoreType=&AdvancedSearch=1&srchInDesc=#[/url<] ) If Apple can sell an iPad with a screen of that size, at the same price as the current iPads, and make a profit, then I will be very impressed.

      • Bauxite
      • 8 years ago

      3.1M, 3.6M

      10″, 27″ (hint: square these numbers for a rough area comparison)

      6 bit, 8 bit

      Millions of units contracted in advance, Thousands built in small lots

      Apples, Oranges (double pun bonus)

        • mcnabney
        • 8 years ago

        I agree a little – larger screens have higher defect percentages, 6 bit is cheaper, as well as ‘less material’ is used in the smaller screen. I also agree about production, although those nice screens photo editors have been buying all these years are made in serious quantities – so there would only be some benefits to moving to 4-5x annual production numbers.

        However, current 1080p/1200 screens for laptops are an expensive part and there is no reason that an even higher resolution, likely IPS screen that needs to be both power efficient and thin should cost less than what is already available to manufactures. I would be amazed if they could get the ‘cost’ of that screen using IPS technology under $250 per display. That would boost the base price to at least $700. Also, the SOC and GPU will need to increase their performance quite a bit to power a screen like this.

    • willyolio
    • 8 years ago

    …do people regularly control the ipad using their noses or something? is that what they discovered in focus groups?

      • kamikaziechameleon
      • 8 years ago

      why do you ask?

        • willyolio
        • 8 years ago

        why else would you need such a ridiculously high resolution on a small screen?

          • Deanjo
          • 8 years ago

          Because it looks better (and yes the differences in display quality is very apparent. One just has to take a look at an iPhone 4 vs an iPhone 3 to see that).

            • SPOOFE
            • 8 years ago

            Small screen = held close to face. Large screen = held not quite so close to face. The improved visual quality is probably significantly more apparent on a device that you look at up close.

            • willyolio
            • 8 years ago

            it’s still a higher resolution than most computer monitors, which are usually just over an arm’s length away and much larger in size. this feels more like the “MOAR MEGAPIXELZZZZZ!” stat inflation that isn’t actually necessary.

            • KoolAidMan
            • 8 years ago

            It is very noticeable. There is a huge difference between a desktop display that is 2-3 feet away and a device that you hold in your hand. Such tiny pixels means that text doesn’t need anti-aliasing, it looks better than actual print. There is actual benefit.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            If text doesn’t have anti-aliasing, I will not buy your product, to hell with how high resolution the screen is. It’s two-thousand-eleven. Get with the program.

            PS: I think you may be thinking of “sub-pixel smoothing,” as well. There is some text anti-aliasing, but sub-pixel smoothing is where it’s at.

            • demani
            • 8 years ago

            Do you not use laser printers either because they don’t antialias either? Only 4color black inkjet for you?

            And yes, they do continue to do some smoothing, but antialiasing is there precisely to make up for low res screens. That’s why it was created-and now they don’t need to continue with that hack. Do you think 6-bit panels are better than 8-bit as well?

            I know this all a little over the top, but it’s a bit much to declare AA the better solution with a straight face.

            • Deanjo
            • 8 years ago

            If you saw a monitor with that kind of pixel density you would think “Man does 1080P look like crap” as well. It’s no secret that computer monitor manufacturers have been dragging their collective asses bringing better quality displays. Also keep in mind that the physical font size is also much smaller then your typical desktop font size and that is where extra pixel density comes in.

    • Malphas
    • 8 years ago

    What’s the point of a resolution that high on a ten inch screen? Just make it 1920×1080 so it can run HD video without scaling and leave it at that.

      • ModernPrimitive
      • 8 years ago

      That was exactly my thought.

        • mcnabney
        • 8 years ago

        They are quadrupling the resolution so that applications can just be ‘line doubled’ to run on the new device. Changing to any other resolution would require a more complicated scalling solution. The same thing happened moving to the iPhone 4 – it had 4x the pixels as the previous models.

        Also, 1080p is much more rectangular. 1920×1200, maybe (actually, that would be an excellent Android tablet resolution… hint hint)

          • btb
          • 8 years ago

          For Android tablets they could do 1920×1440. Would still be nice 4:3 that people seem to prefer for tablets, and you would be able to watch 1920×1080 movies with no scaling issues just some black bars, but (imo) no biggie

      • tay
      • 8 years ago

      16:9 is an awful tablet resolution.

        • Ushio01
        • 8 years ago

        16:9 isn’t a resolution it’s an aspect ratio.

          • UberGerbil
          • 8 years ago

          Yeah. At the 4:3 ratio that Apple likes (it’s probably not their ideal, but it’s better than 16:9 and is one their panel suppliers have experience with) you might expect to see 1920×1440, allowing for full HD native playback with that shape of screen. Going all the way to 2Kx1.5K is surprising.

            • demani
            • 8 years ago

            It makes sense from the pixel doubling effect-it just simplifies things tremendously on the software side to do it that way. Of course that means 1080i/p stuff will actually get [i<]upsampled[/i<]. Seems funny to think of Full HD as being too low of a resolution for a tablet...

            • SPOOFE
            • 8 years ago

            I’d love a monitor that allowed me to look at my 12mp stills at native resolution. In some ways, 1080p is really, really small.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 8 years ago

      The point is the same point of Retina to begin with. Make the pixels so small as to be invisible to the naked eye.

        • Kougar
        • 8 years ago

        Are you kidding? I own a 24″ widescreen monitor @ 1920×1200, and you can’t discern individual pixels. There’s no way a small, 9.7″ screen needs that much resolution, let alone MORE.

        That’s the resolution equivalent of 27″ monitors!

          • cygnus1
          • 8 years ago

          i don’t know how far you sit from your monitor, but get your eyes checked. i can regularly discern pixels on 24″ 19×12 and 19×10 displays. that resolution at that size has a pretty average ppi in the mid 90’s. One of the reasons that computer displays have been stuck around the same ppi for so long is that OS’s are not setup to be ppi independant. too much of the interface is designed to be x pixels big. as soon as apple or MS get off their ass and upgrade their desktop interfaces to be resolution independent, we’ll see some serious improvement on monitors.

          most phones have a better ppi than your computer monitors, but are still too low. the best example I can give you (since they run the same software and are similar sized screens) is to go grab an iphone 3GS and an iphone 4. hold them both at normal viewing distance. you’ll see pixels and aliasing on the 3GS where you won’t on the 4. the 3GS has almost double the ppi of your 24″ monitor at 19×12, 163 vs 94. The iphone 4 is double the 3GS at 326 ppi. it’s only at these high ppi densities do the pixels get small enough for people with good vision (or properly corrected vision) to not be able to see them.

          FYI, if the rumor is correct and all they are doing is pixel doubling the current ipad screens, it’s still only going to have a ppi around 260, which still might not be enough to make the pixels disappear for all human eyes

          • Meadows
          • 8 years ago

          What cygnus1 said. Most of it.

      • Deanjo
      • 8 years ago

      Have you actually looked at a Retina display? If you had you wouldn’t be asking such a question.

        • SPOOFE
        • 8 years ago

        I have, and I’m still certain the improvement on a near-view device will be more impressive than such an increase on something viewed from a couple feet away. Which is not to say that there wouldn’t be an improvement, mind you.

          • Farting Bob
          • 8 years ago

          You tend to use a tablet further away than you do a phone though (not many people i know use their phones at a full arms length), sort of inbetween a monitor and a phone in terms of distance and screensize. So a 1080p type size (with appropreite aspect ratio, around 2MP) would be fine, they are upping it further presumably to make it easier for developers to upscale their current games (exactly double vertical and hirozontal pixels, very easy to upscale).

          If they were designing a tablet from scratch they might not pick such a weird size but its easier for software guys to get a handle of such a resolution.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 8 years ago

      “YAY ITS FULL HD THAT’s PERFECT!” Never mind that 16:9 is a crap shape to work with.

        • A_Pickle
        • 8 years ago

        Not as crappy as 4:3…

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 8 years ago

          What?!? Wrong wrong wrong, screwed up backwards totally upside down wrong. I have no idea how anyone could regard 16:9 as a preferential shape over 4:3. Its crap. CRAP. Let me say that a few more times. ITS CRAP. Garbage, mindless pointless useless garbage.

            • A_Pickle
            • 8 years ago

            I disagree. I think the ASUS Eee Pad Transformer, which makes use of a 16:10 screen, is a far better tablet than the iPad. 16:10 is pretty goddamn close to 16:9, and both have pretty high-resolution LCD panels that are manufactured to those aspect ratios.

            16:9 isn’t ideal to me. I liked the slight vertical advantage of 16:10 screens, I miss my 1920×1200. But, 1920×1080 isn’t half bad — I prefer gaming in widescreen, and the widescreen-ness lets me easily do things side by side — especially with Aero Snap in Windows 7. 4:3 screens are just way too cramped to do this, and they blind me in gaming by cutting my field of view.

            I mean, I guess we disagree… but I’ve been thinking that the average Gerbil’s frothy-mouthed reaction to the industry [i<]daring[/i<] to go 16:9 is... a little over the top...

            • Anonymous Coward
            • 8 years ago

            FROTH FROTH FROTH

            Keep your fancy wide screens away from me.

            • demani
            • 8 years ago

            But that seems to be for a traditional computer, not one that has its orientation changed on a regular basis as critical part of its functionality. You are applying desktop concepts to a tablet.

            • NeelyCam
            • 8 years ago

            Troll argument is baseless.

      • Chrispy_
      • 8 years ago

      I’m sort of with Malphas on this one. In a low-powered ‘convenience’ device where maximising battery life is one of the main goals, having a hungry screen that requires extra scaling work from the CPU/GPU seems like a dumb idea.

      1920×1440 would be the optimum, I guess – fitting Apple’s 4:3 ratio ideals without requiring media scaling in many instances. Either way, the screen isn’t the part of the iPhone2 that needs the most improvement….

        • Decelerate
        • 8 years ago

        “In a low-powered ‘convenience’ device where maximising battery life is one of the main goals, having a hungry screen that requires extra scaling work from the CPU/GPU seems like a dumb idea.”

        the iPad’s not exactly on the low-end of battery life slate devices, and I’m pretty sure 10 hours is a hard engineering/design requirement for the development team at The Fruit…

      • ImSpartacus
      • 8 years ago

      It’s a perfect double (err quad?) of the original iPad screen. Apple wants to maintain perfect pixel doubling with old apps.

        • djgandy
        • 8 years ago

        Screw power consumption, pixel doubling is the number one priority, and lets not worry about having 4x the GPU to power all those pixels too right?

        I think if you are going to add even 2x the GPU I think that such GPU would be able to do good scaling to 720p+ resolutions.

        Or, God forbid, developers will just have to update their apps or scaling is not done to the complete edge of the screen.

          • ImSpartacus
          • 8 years ago

          Do you think the iPad will be the only tablet with a 1080p+ resolution?

          The next Moto tablet is rumored to have the same QXGA resolution. Samsung is making a WQXGA 10.1″ display for its future tablets. Samsung’s leaked phone lineup shows a number of ~4.3″ 720p handsets. HTC will probably lag behind with resolution because their products have horrendous battery life, but they are definitely the exception.

          Your battery life and GPU concerns are misplaced.

      • A_Pickle
      • 8 years ago

      You’re telling this to the company that elected to use 1024×768 as the screen resolution on their first tablet, in a world of 16:9 screens.

        • Corrado
        • 8 years ago

        and generally, the world agreed they made the correct choice.

      • bnajbert
      • 8 years ago

      Reading that the resolution would be 2048×1536 immediately made me think this was BS. It makes absolutely no sense to have a res that high and makes me think that the person responsible for this has no idea what they are talking about.

        • ImSpartacus
        • 8 years ago

        That’s what people said when the 960×640 iPhone rumors came out. Yet, the $200 (subsidized) iPhone 4 manages battery life that leads the smartphone market.

        Considering those two premises, I see no reason they couldn’t do the same thing with the iPad’s screen. We’ll see a QXGA iPad for $500 and we will all praise it.

        Besides, Samsung is making a WQXGA 10.1″ screen, literally the widescreen version of the rumored QXGA 9.7″ iPad screen. And phones will spring to 720p in a year as well. 2012 will be the year of the [s<]Linux computer[/s<] high resolution mobile device!

    • LSDX
    • 8 years ago

    I’m wondering why they are pushing for such a high resolution for such a small screen size. Even with 1024x*768 or 1280*800 I can hardly discern single pixels if I hold my tablet at a distance that lets me easily read.

    It’s not that I would mind having a higher resolution, but when it comes to costs/benefits I can’t imagine this to make any sense.

      • Parallax
      • 8 years ago

      It makes a lot of sense for people that can see it, though admittedly it won’t benefit everyone. You can always use a lower resolution device.

      • btb
      • 8 years ago

      Agree its probably a bit overkill, BUT.. if they can mass-produce 2048×1536 at a decent pricepoint, why not? The iphone 4 retina display is really nice to look at, and I imagine this display will be similar.

        • A_Pickle
        • 8 years ago

        Agreed. Now just get it on a device without an Apple logo on it, and I’ll be happy.

    • swaaye
    • 8 years ago

    It’ll be interesting to see how it plays games while pumping out that many pixels. I’m thinking upscaling is going to be the solution there.

      • Farting Bob
      • 8 years ago

      Its exactly twice the resolution in both directions (4 times as many pixels overall) for a reason. Everyone can just convert any game currently available probably with just a single “make me HD” button. It will work in the short term, and at that size its not overly noticeable anyway if you get a few rough edges. And im sure many game devs have been making textures for games at this res for a while (since ipad 2 was rumoured to have the high resolution) and currently downscale it for this generation.

    • Parallax
    • 8 years ago

    Yes! Now give me a desktop display with the same pixel density.

    At 120Hz. (I can dream, can’t I)

      • swaaye
      • 8 years ago

      I think the limits of even Displayport would stop you quick, unfortunately.

        • Parallax
        • 8 years ago

        Assuming my calculations are correct, 60Hz at 2160p should be possible.

        DP 1.2 = 17.28Gb/s max
        3840×2160 60Hz 24-bit color = 11.12 Gb/s
        2560×1600 120Hz 24-bit color = 10.98 Gb/s

        So there’s still bandwidth left over for other uses or overhead.

    • Firestarter
    • 8 years ago

    If they go through with this and manage to keep it affordable, I’d consider it a great move. And ofcourse I hope that competitors would follow suit. I’m no fan of Apple at all, but I like that they sometimes just don’t bother slowly evolving products. I mean, we’re likely to see tablets competing with this iPad 3 or 4, sporting ‘Full HD’ screens that sport a third less pixels.

    • LiquidSpace
    • 8 years ago

    2048.1536 that’s impressive, but i’ll wait for Win 8 tablets, I don’t really like IOS that much.

      • A_Pickle
      • 8 years ago

      Same here. I’d like to be able to install a PDF printer so’s that I can keep soft-copies of my personal information and documents, but Apple doesn’t want me to.

      Hmm.

      Redmond it is.

        • demani
        • 8 years ago

        Which Redmond slate let’s you do that? If you say one running Win7 are you actually -for really reals- saying you’d prefer a slate with an unoptimized interface generally regarded as a poor match, and with poor battery life just to be able to print PDFs from the device? How are you using this thing?

    • sschaem
    • 8 years ago

    Where can you get a $99 Touchpad ?

      • rndmuser
      • 8 years ago

      Right now? Probably nowhere, as most major retailers have already sold their in-stock units… Best bet would probably be to wait for HP to get more units (such as from retailers who decided to return them to HP instead of selling them by themselves). Just check this thread as often as you can for updates:
      [url<]http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=3220862[/url<]

    • FakeAlGore
    • 8 years ago

    I wish I could [i<]find[/i<] a $99 TouchPad.

      • sweatshopking
      • 8 years ago

      i was at futureshop first thing saturday to get mine. they’re mia now.

      • rndmuser
      • 8 years ago

      Go to slickdeals.net, they had several threads going with a constant updates on where/when it is still/will be available. Here’s the main thread:
      [url<]http://slickdeals.net/forums/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=3220862[/url<]

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This