Google teams up with Samsung for the next Nexus tablet that will deliver a mind blowing pixel density that is higher than the iPad 3. That’s right, the next Nexus tablet from google will have a pixel density of 299 PPI versus the iPad 3’s 264 PPI. The resolution of the tablet turns out to be a whopping 2560×1600 (the iPad 3 has a resolution of 2048×1536), which is greater than ~95% of all PC monitors. However, the bad news is that Samsung will be marketing this as a “high end” device. This means that it will most likely have a “high end” price. So, don’t expect to see the cosy prices that we saw with Google’s Nexus tablet ($199 and $249).
Source: cnet.com
-
Google Nexus 7 Review
20 July 2012 10:35 PM | 7 Comments Read More --> -
MSI’s tablet due in second quarter at $500
28 January 2010 8:03 PM | No Comments Read More --> -
Nexus 7 Meet the Amazon Kindle Fire HD
06 September 2012 5:25 PM | 1 Comment Read More -->
Related News:
I think around the $300-$350 area would be okay. They really have to be careful with the prices since Amazon’s Kindle Fire HD (1920×1200) goes for $199. So, they may be able to get away with slightly higher prices. I would say that they should definitely not go above $400.
So……. why can they make a god damn 10″ 2560×1600 IPS screen AND hardware and sell it for $300 but a 30″ IPS monitor costs $1000
Affordable anti-gloss OLED 2k monitors in 2014 FTW? Hopefully….
My Galaxy S has noticable fading/burn in (from the time display when displaying all white all the time on the homescreen)
It’s kind of funny since you can easily spot where the time is shown because it’s so much dimmer than everywhere else when displaying white.
To be fair it is for a phone, but it is a little disheartening to hear. Issues such as burn-in is a higher factor for larger screens and should be taken into account for TVs and monitors. So, I’m not certain if we will see this type of behavior for PC monitors and TVs.
Well crap:
Plasma displays are highly susceptible to burn-in, while LCD-type displays are generally less so. Because of the more rapid luminance degradation of current organic compounds used in OLED-type displays, OLED is even more susceptible to burn-in than plasma.[citation needed] In addition, the wide variation in luminance degradation with OLED [1] will cause noticeable color drift over time (where one of the red-green-blue colors becomes more prominent).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Screen_burn-in
If they don’t fix this for future displays this could be a major disappointment since this is the future technology for displays. They managed toi most of the issues with Plasma, so I’m assuming manufactures can fix or reduce burn-ins with OLEDs.
I think we don’t need that kind of resolution at that size of a screen. And it will also put lots of pressure on the chip. This race is idiotic and gimmicky and serves no purpose other than to milk idiots off their money, while the lab boys mess around trying to come up with better density displays for the next gen tvs and monitors (where higher resolutions will actually be worth it).
I’m for it since the higher res screens will make them have to push the hardware inside the device as well. So, while it isn’t necessarily worth it, the push it gives the industry is IMO. Furthermore, this will eventually translate into the larger TVs since it makes more people aware of higher resolution formats. So, while there is a downside, there is an upside as well.
This sort of resolution fad is hitting laptops especially withe Apples new Mackbook. So, hopefully, this will eventually hit desktops and lead to lower prices there as well. I checked newegg and some of those higher resolutions above 1920 x 1200 can be pricey.
As I said, pushing stuff lab boys made while researching new tv/monitor panels. Those will be useful, a 10 inch device with this sort of resolution is not. And as a side note, they can do whatever the hell they want, battery life will still bite them in the butt because it’s going nowhere fast, just like HDDs are going nowhere and they’re being replaced by very expensive SSDs. Only that there is no very expensive alternative to batteries. lol
Well yeah battery life is always a challenge, but it means that not only do they have to get more powerful hardware, they also have to get more efficient hardware. So, again while the small screen doesn’t warrant the resolution better hardware will be produced as a result, which in turn pushes the industry.
The tablet market is moving rather fast. I mean right after the Nexus 7 came out, the kindle fire hd came out as a response, with a 1920 x 1200 screen and more powerful hardware. Now, google is responding with an even more powerful tablet with a higher resolution. So, again, I am for it since it pushes things in the market a bit.
I prefer to stay practical personally. The evolution of small devices is indeed needed, but not while fooling the common folk with expensive devices simply because of the included gimmicks, in this case the screen. Seriously did they need such a screen or will they ever need such a screen? Hell I don’t feel like I need it on my pc even (athough gaming without a need for AA would be cool and superHD will offer that).
Stronger and more power efficient chips would come without a ramhogging powerhogging superhd 10 inch screen. Same thing goes for batteries, since they are being sought after by every single field out there (from medicine to military). They don’t need superhd 10 inch screens to push the industry forward in that regard. It’s just a silly selling point that forces them into stronger hardware which wastes its power to fuel the screen instead of performing tasks.
Yes, you have a point, but what I am saying isn’t completely impractical. Perhaps I am just coming from a stand point of using a crappy netbook with a crappy 1024 x 768 resolution. A lot of netbooks are/ were hung up on that resolution and it made simple things like web browsing or photo editing a pain despite the small screen. So, apart of me is excited to see that the resolution is one of the things in focus when developing a device. You’re right a 2560 x 1600 screen is extreme, but as long as it is above 1024 x 768 I personally don’t mind that much.
Going back to the push, you are also right they don’t need a super high res screen to push them, but again I am saying that it accelerates things a bit considering you need more powerful hardware to handle things at that resolution. So, then we may see tablets that don’t have that resolution, but then they have similar components that were originally meant for that high res screen. Again, I do see your point, but I think we will just have to agree to disagree a bit for now heh.
No arguments there. I’d just prefer a 1680×1050 or 1920×1080 (depends on the ratio) screen which seems way more normal and less demanding than such an expensive and high density screen.