Higher PPI leads to quadratically poorer panel yield, and requires quadratically higher GPU capabilities. It wouldn't be cost effective, and would reduce GPU performance.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad Pro 2024 iPad Pro - Low Res :(((
- Thread starter erkanasu
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah I don't really think the effective resolution is that great (better than most other headsets of course), but based on the OP's pure focus on PPI as a metric... you can't really beat the Vision Pro.
Not sure how some of yous get it wrong.
The farther you use your device from your face, the lower ppi is necessary to get the same perceived sharpness.
iphone (460ppi) > ipad (264ppi) > macbook (254ppi) > 65" 4K TV (68ppi)
ipad has same ppi as macbook, and is designed to be used closer to you than a laptop, therefore it's under-ppi'd and I definitely notice the lack of sharpness on a usual using distance (vs macbook in a lap)
The farther you use your device from your face, the lower ppi is necessary to get the same perceived sharpness.
iphone (460ppi) > ipad (264ppi) > macbook (254ppi) > 65" 4K TV (68ppi)
ipad has same ppi as macbook, and is designed to be used closer to you than a laptop, therefore it's under-ppi'd and I definitely notice the lack of sharpness on a usual using distance (vs macbook in a lap)
It’s not specs for specs sake. I did see some “fuzziness” on an OLED M4 iPad Pro in the Apple Store. The iPhone 15 Pro Max looks superior.
You should still get a Vision Pro though - nothing’s going to match that PPI anytime soon.
All of this stuff has been learned and discussed years ago. The bigger the panel, the farther the viewing distance and generally the lower the PPI. Everything balances out in the end as the eyes won’t distinguish pixels on lower PPI panels at their optimal viewing distance. Steve Jobs went into detail about the eye and the eye science behind the first Retina displays. Pixelation distinguished by the eyes is a function of panel size, PPI and viewing distance: the farther out, the less the eyes can distinguish individual pixels. Imagine the original poster demanding iPhone PPI out of a 77” OLED TV.
This is a non-issue.
This is a non-issue.
Last edited:
Even when cost, power, and size are non-factors, Apple went with 218 PPI on their 32-inch Pro Display XDR. Apple could have gone 8K like Dell did in 2017, just for specs for the sake of specs.
Most people don't position their monitor as close as their iPad. Similarly, people don't hold their iPad as close as their iPhone.
Most people don't position their monitor as close as their iPad. Similarly, people don't hold their iPad as close as their iPhone.
tl;dr The differences in PPIs between phones & tablets and between the different iPads is largely a legacy of old development priorities NOT Apple deciding to higher PPIs are actually better.
I can't say what fuzziness someone else does or doesn't see so I'm not trying to weigh in on whether Apple should bump up the PPI on the iPad. I did want to counter a couple of points that were made for historical accuracy.
The PPI of the iPhones jumped up for two reasons unrelated to sharpness. When Apple switched a bigger phone screen size because keeping screen ratios the same was important ~10 years ago for mobile development. So the iPhone 6 Plus rendered graphics internally at 3x vs 2x and then down-scaled to compensate for the "odd" resolution.
Second, when Apple later moved to OLED the only good supplier at the time was Samsung which used a pentile display and higher resolutions were necessary because pentile displays don't have true RGB sub pixels for each "pixel" which makes them visibly grainy and fuzzy at the same PPI as LCDs (or true RGB OLED displays). So to hit that (somewhat vague) "retina" standard Apple had to up the PPI. So the increased PPI in phones is a bit messy, and spec wars might have factored in, but it was still more about tech and developer needs.
Regarding the PPI of the iPad mini, remember how I said ~10 years ago it was a priority to keep uniformity between generations for developers? It has a higher PPI only because it matched the resolution of the full-sized iPad of the time exactly, so developers didn't need to develop a separate iPad mini layout. It wasn't until the iPad Pro 12.9" that Apple made a iPad that used a different resolution—even then the first generation used the same aspect ratio so apps scaled the same.
Apple now requires developers to make regular, plus, and mini sized apps for phones, watches, and iPads. However, if you go back to the early 2010's they made a big deal about developers only having to create one visual size per device. I don't know exactly why they shifted priorities but they were once very vocal about it. They were willing to fudge/increase PPI to achieve it.
I can't say what fuzziness someone else does or doesn't see so I'm not trying to weigh in on whether Apple should bump up the PPI on the iPad. I did want to counter a couple of points that were made for historical accuracy.
The PPI of the iPhones jumped up for two reasons unrelated to sharpness. When Apple switched a bigger phone screen size because keeping screen ratios the same was important ~10 years ago for mobile development. So the iPhone 6 Plus rendered graphics internally at 3x vs 2x and then down-scaled to compensate for the "odd" resolution.
Second, when Apple later moved to OLED the only good supplier at the time was Samsung which used a pentile display and higher resolutions were necessary because pentile displays don't have true RGB sub pixels for each "pixel" which makes them visibly grainy and fuzzy at the same PPI as LCDs (or true RGB OLED displays). So to hit that (somewhat vague) "retina" standard Apple had to up the PPI. So the increased PPI in phones is a bit messy, and spec wars might have factored in, but it was still more about tech and developer needs.
Regarding the PPI of the iPad mini, remember how I said ~10 years ago it was a priority to keep uniformity between generations for developers? It has a higher PPI only because it matched the resolution of the full-sized iPad of the time exactly, so developers didn't need to develop a separate iPad mini layout. It wasn't until the iPad Pro 12.9" that Apple made a iPad that used a different resolution—even then the first generation used the same aspect ratio so apps scaled the same.
Apple now requires developers to make regular, plus, and mini sized apps for phones, watches, and iPads. However, if you go back to the early 2010's they made a big deal about developers only having to create one visual size per device. I don't know exactly why they shifted priorities but they were once very vocal about it. They were willing to fudge/increase PPI to achieve it.
I’ve been using an 11” M4 side by side with my 11” M2 iPP, and even though my M2 looks really good, the M4 looks even crisper. Like the image is literally painted on the glass. So no, I don’t agree with it needing higher res.
In all fairness you can’t exactly claim ”the human eye can’t tell the difference” in response to “I can easily see the difference”
and if the retina ppi Steve Jobs introduced on the iPhone 4 was truly sufficient for its intended viewing distance, then phones would still be that ppi, but they are not. (not to mention the screens got much larger, so by your own logic phone ppi should have gone down).
”imagine asking for an iPhone ppi from a 77” tv” is such a disingenuous comparison. A 77” tv is SEVEN times larger than an iPad, and viewed from a seat across a room. An iPad is held in your hand like a phone, maybe a couple inches further at most.
this iPad has the same ppi on paper as the very first ipad I got 13 years ago, and next to all my other devices, it shows. In fact even next to my rather ancient iPad Pro 9.7, this screen is in some ways a downgrade. Oled uses a different subpixel arrangement that effectively makes it lower resolution than an LED screen at the same ppi. I noticed it the moment I took this thing out of the box. Everything looks like a compressed jpg on this screen (I can’t help but wonder if they are running some software sharpening algorithms to try to compensate that are in fact making things even uglier, especially with text)
anyway, im sure there were tradeoffs to be made with thinness and to make the tandem oled work. I do appreciate it’s black levels and response time. But there are still downsides and tradeoffs, and i think it is fair to be honest about that. This screen is good in a lot of ways, but sharpness is something that could legitimately disappoint someone.
Do someone know that type of matrix is used by tandem oled? Is it pentilne or true RGB? maybe thats the reason why for someone M4 ipads looks less sharper than M2 with mini led
FYI, the PPI on iPhone has remained the same or gone down.
- iPhone 4 = 326 PPI
- iPhones 11 = 326 PPI
- OLED iPhones = 307 PPI actual
For OLED, Apple has changed the definition of a pixel. Hence, the 460 PPI you see on the spec sheet can't be directly compared to LCD models.
- LCD iPhone pixel = 3 subpixels (RGB)
- OLED iPhone pixel = 2 subpixels (RG or BG)
The only outlier is with iPhone 6, 7, and 8 Plus with 401 PPI. But there are mathematical and developer reasons why that resolution was chosen.
You’re reinforcing my point if anything.
The 2024 iPad Pro went oled without increasing the on paper ppi from the previous lcd models. So by your math the iPad Pro 2024 is only 176ppi effectively and every model before it since 2011 is 264.
I’m not sure if experientially it appears as a full 1/3rd loss in resolution, but yes, this is my point. It looks fuzzy. And I think they are doing a bad post process sharpening with software making it even uglier.
I wouldn't say my 13 M4 looks fuzzy next to my Air 2, M1 12.9, Mini 6, or 14 PM.
subjectively it might not be noticeable for you, but subjectively for me, i do notice it, and i notice it quite a bit. and as JPack mentioned, 264ppi oled is lower effective resolution than 264ppi lcd, so objectively, this is a lower resolution screen than every single ipad since 2011.
Being subjective says that people need to try it for themselves and if it is an issue for them, then go with a different unit.
i guess thats a truism. i'm still a bit sad. i'm more than satisfied with the oled iphone and mini led macbook pro, i think they got the balance of specs right on those. but this one is a miss for me.
It's interesting the different sensitivities that people have to display issues - there's this and another example is the jelly scroll in the Mini 6. I never noticed it until it was pointed out in the forum and while it doesn't bother me and others in the least, it drives some people up the wall and makes the device unusable for them. And if it is something that bothers you, you can't ignore it. Different sounds can be the same way, e.g. fingernails on a blackboard. Hopefully, another iteration corrects this for you and others.
While they could improve PPI, the display is the last thing I would change in the iPad Pro.
Colors are Good, resolution is more than enough unless you are really looking for problems as the viewing distance is enough to mitigate the “lower” resolution.
Personally I never had issue with the res, but that’s just me.
Colors are Good, resolution is more than enough unless you are really looking for problems as the viewing distance is enough to mitigate the “lower” resolution.
Personally I never had issue with the res, but that’s just me.
You misunderstand or misapply some fundamental concepts of display technology and human visual perception.
First, let’s address the claim about PPI (pixels per inch) on phones and your logical fallacy. The reason PPI has increased over time isn’t because the original PPI was insufficient for the intended viewing distance: the science is established there. It’s a function of evolving technology, consumer demand for even crisper displays as phone screen sizes increased while maintaining or improving visual sharpness and... marketing. However, the diminishing returns in perceived sharpness as PPI increases beyond a certain threshold are well-documented. At normal viewing distances, the human eye cannot discern the difference between, say, 326 PPI (the original Retina display) and 400+ PPI on modern smartphones, especially when the devices are held at a typical viewing distance of about 10-12 inches. Beyond a certain point, increasing PPI on a phone is more about marketing than noticeable visual improvement.
And PPI is only one aspect of several things that have evolved to make screens better. They are brighter, with richer contrast and have even better viewing angles.
Now, let’s clarify the comparison with the 77” TV. You argue that comparing the PPI of a large TV to a phone is “disingenuous,” but this actually underscores the point about viewing distance and PPI. A 77” TV, when viewed from a typical living room distance of 8-10 feet, doesn’t need the same PPI as a phone or tablet held inches from your face because the angular resolution (the detail the human eye can resolve) changes with distance. As the distance increases, the need for a high PPI decreases because your eyes can’t distinguish the individual pixels. This is why TVs with lower PPI than phones can still deliver a such a good viewing experience.
Regarding the OLED screen you mentioned, it’s true that OLED panels often use different subpixel arrangements (like Pentile), which can result in a lower effective resolution compared to RGB LCD panels of the same PPI. However, the trade-offs with OLED—such as superior black levels, contrast, and response times—often outweigh these differences for most users. The perception of sharpness can be subjective, especially when comparing across different display technologies, and it’s possible that certain text rendering algorithms or software settings are contributing to your specific experience. I own the new 13" iPad Pro and I see the screen as excellent.
However, dismissing the entire display as being subpar because of these factors overlooks the broader context of how display technologies work and evolve. Display engineers balance a multitude of factors—battery life, brightness, colour accuracy, and manufacturing constraints... when designing screens, especially as they push the envelope with newer, more advanced technology like OLED.
Ultimately, while it’s valid to notice and critique the specific attributes of a screen, particularly if you’re very sensitive to these differences, it’s equally important to understand that not all users will have the same experience. The perceived difference in sharpness may be significant to you but that doesn't imply a majority of users. Your experience is real, but it’s not universal, and understanding the broader principles behind display technology might give a better context for why the trade-offs made in this particular design are valid for other users.
Since ultimately we end at the same spot I’m not going to reply to all this - though I do not appreciate being told I “misunderstand and misapply” and then explained stuff I already know.
Like you admit, the issues are there, but Apple decided “most people won’t care.” And I don’t disagree that’s probably the case. But as someone who does care, it stings.
If I was to offer any other context for why it bothers me as much as it does though: an rgb subpixel layout with lower ppi at least gives a crisp but pixellated output. An oled layout has to use the sub pixels of neighbouring pixels to fully describe its colour, giving this display a smeary look. Doesn’t hurt photos that much, but for high contrast content like text, the edges remind me of monitors from the early 2000s set to the wrong resolution. And it actually is headache inducing for me.
No, I don’t say the issues are there. I acknowledge for you, they are there. I don’t see a smeary look. The OLED screen on my 13” iPad Pro looks incredible to me in every respect.
