any ideas or rumors about iPad 2?

I think the pretty for sure stuff would include front facing camera and ram, storage and CPU bumps.

I wouldn't be terribly surprised if that were it. Conceivably shave a few ounces off, extend the battery life a little. Given the success of the iPad and how well they're selling, I would think the early '11 refresh would be mostly a spec upgrade, with the next big update not until '12.

Really, i think they will get a pretty moderate spec increase (512MB-1GB RAM), storage of 32/64/128GB and a FaceTime camera.

Higher resolution screens, new CPU/GPU, 4G modems will be reserved for sometime next year. Personally, I would like to see a larger iPad, maybe with a 13" screen.

Exactly the same as the iPad does now. Or, you know like a Mac Pro. They'll just cut a hole in the case.


Double the RAM and storage, front/back cameras for FaceTime, likely.


Uh, April or May like the first.

iPad: Every year in April/May
iPhone: Every year in June.
iPods: Every year in September.

FaceTime is too important for Apple to ignore on the iPad from rev B on. Using the same camera systems as the iPhone uses is logical, so I see that developing into two cameras for the iPad.

I understand that the basis for the A4 chip is now available as a dual core and the iPad is the perfect platform for that - an A6 chip?

Memory expansions? No surprise there as it's been there for the iPhone/touch as a "standard enhancement" long enough to be expected.

Biggest surprises?

Apple will be following the adaption of the iPad in various areas, like Medicine, and will deliver larger iPads that serve them well. The 11" is the best "next" iPad size, but I can see a 13.3" (the MBP 13" without a keyboard) as a possible addition. Check out OsiriX screen shots for an indication of the potential of using a larger, more powerful iPad in medicine.

Nope. Nonsense.

That spammer's post about boots threw me for a minute. I thought UGG booting was some kind of new boot technology, in terms of how a computer starts up. LOL. If only I were more fashionable.

Anyhow, I am looking forward to the next iteration of the iPad and expect Apple to follow the update cycle established with the iPhone: major redesign, followed by a minor refresh. Aside from the front-facing camera and beefier specs (CPU, RAM, SSD), I don't think much else will change. Personally, I would love to see USB for a flash drive or an SD card slot. However, I don't think Apple will do this because they seem to want to keep users removed from any file system interaction. Maybe apps could look for a loaded SD card and automatically access it if the card contained any files that were recognized as compatible.

A resolution bump seems like an inevitable step, but I don't think it will happen this time. Apps for the iPad seem to be more complex than those on the iPhone. Apple is probably going to give developers some time to complete apps before the force an app update cycle by introducing a new resolution (e.g. Retina display).

It will have double the RAM, a FaceTime camera and will be release in April 2010. The rest is speculation!

Versus your well-sourced and indisputable facts?

Can you give us any compelling reason to think that Apple WOULDN'T put at least one camera on it and double the RAM, much less the NAND capacity?

Not at all. I think those things are rather likely to happen. I'm saying that, by definition, it is all speculation. Some speculation is more reasoned than others, but until the product comes out, it is speculation. Stating things as fact like "double the RAM" is simply silly. I find the imprecise use of language grating.

My comment was clearly sarcasm.

I'd like to see


1. 512MB of RAM or more.
2. Faster processing. Dual Core A4 chips
3. 30 Pin connector on side and bottom for easy docking
4. Bluetooth 3.0 and Near Field Communication (NFC)
5. Retina Display
6. Facetime
7. 32/64/128GB models
8. Faster GPU
9. Wimax support for xG models.
10. Stereo speakers

I second this/these. Although I'd like a "Retina"-esque (ie slightly higher res) display, I'm not holding my breath. NFC I'd like to see on the next iPhone - when I'm due for upgrade!

Are you sure? Because you've made plenty of posts just like that that weren't. Classics such as "Apple will release a TV by end of 2008. Fact!"

Three predictions, followed by: "The rest is speculation! "

Yes, I'm sure.

Yes, and you'd also like it to be free. Wouldn't we all.

My personal wish is for the iPad 2 to be slightly smaller and slightly lighter. Everything else would be a bonus.

I don't remember saying it exactly that, but if you say so then I'll give you the BOD. So I was wrong about that date, big deal. Human beings make mistakes. I WAS WRONG!

That's not saying it's not coming, though. Sooner of later I'll get my way

Yes RAM is a big issue, 512MB would more than double RAM available to applications.

Yes the current A4 is pathetically slow. However we need to have Apple move to ARM Cortex A9 based technology, the A8 based A4 is already old news in the processor world.

As a side note what the hell is wrong with Apple using naming conventions so close to their suppliers conventions. This is bound to become more confusing in the future.

Some people like Bluetooth, but I'd rather see Apple supply a standard USB port. Either way though the issue of drivers is a problem, neither USB nor Bluetooth are very useful without OS support.

Sadly this is what we are likely to get but the big problem is Apples rip off pricing of Flash storage. For a device of this type we should be getting 256GB of storage in the top end model. It isn't like Apple is using a high performance Flash installation in these machines.

The potential is for a big jump here too. Personally I don't see GPU performance as big as an issue as the CPU though. It would be nice though to see OpenCl strongly supported on iPad.

LTE would be fine for me.

I'd like to add to your list though.

A. GPS in all models! This makes the cell free models far more useful as GPS support can be found in all sorts of apps.
B. SD slot. Personally I think this would be a huge benefit, even if they have to limit support to a couple of apps. The obvious item to support is cameras. The other is movies on SD. Why movies, because there will never be enough room in iPad to store an entire collection, so why not avoid storing them there at all?
C. As noted a USB port would open up iPad to all sorts of apps. The big problem is driver support/installation. In that regard I'd like to see Apple support those items with well defined standards. For example Protocol converters (USB to: Ethernet, RS232 for example), storage devices, web cameras, iPhones and whatever else they can support easily. I realize the issue of drivers is a problem and that Apple currently supports a limited number of devices through the camera connection kit but this needs to be built right into the iPad.
D. Now that I think about it I'd also like to see them add a SSD slot like we now see in the AIRs. Ideally this would allow for machine upgrades as technology gets denser. There is likely zero chance of this happening though.
E. User defined switches. This is something I'd like to see on all iOS devices. One or two would do but the idea is that physical switches are some times better than touch screens. Camera apps are one very good example. You see I don't mind Apple restricting the use of predefined switches and other hardware, I just think they need to add an user (app) accessible alternative.
F. A Mag Safe connector. That is for powering/charging the iPad from alternative power sources. However Apple needs to pull its head out of its a$$ here and license the connector for wide spread usage so that we can have low cost alternatives. In this regards one thing I'd like to see is a 5 to 10 watt solar panel using this port. Of course we could do this through the iPod connector but that then ties up the port, which can be a problem.
G. While they are at it throw in a compass.

I think there are some pretty interesting ideas here. They seem to divide into the following four categories:

1. Performance: faster processor, 512 Mb RAM, increased SSD drive capacity, better speakers, longer battery life
2. Functionality: Improved ability to create, edit save and store documents on board, increased sensitivity of touch screen to aid input speed and accuracy, addition of Face time for video calls, improved software keyboard, handwriting input, screen treatment to avoid finger marks
3. Ergonomics: Retina display, multi-adjustable 30-pin connector to allow different docking positions, lower device weight
4. Connectivity: Camera, SD card slot, USB port(s), 30-pin connector, mini display port, WiMax, Bluetooth upgrades

Of these, I would say lower device weight is probably the most important improvement sought after by users, followed by screen resolution and viewing quality, followed by processor performance and multitasking, followed by battery life (which is already pretty good). If iPad 2.0 can deliver these enhancements, it will be a worthy upgrade that will only increase the user base.

Perhaps the most important potential upgrade might be the option for it to be a standalone device, i.e. one that doesn't need to be connected to a Mac computer for set-up, sync, and back-up. I know that Apple likes the way in which dependence on the Mac has a virtuous effect on total sales, but this mothership-satellite approach requiring dual device ownership may actually impede the iPad's growth, because it has the ability to be an independent computer in its own right.

One thing I think is driving technology forward in this space is the SD card. Solid state memory is now rapidly replacing DVD drives and disks. As easy and reliable as it is to save/ backup data electronically via bluetooth, WiFI or direct to mothership connections, the ability to store and transfer data directly via a small piece of hardware adds extra flexibility. If you could load software on it or transfer files via SD cards, then the iPad's capabilities would grow exponentially.

For me, the one drawback of the iPad is data entry. The software keyboard is still comparatively slow and unreliable versus a regular one. Voice recognition isn't there yet either. Is handwriting recognition the way ahead? I love the idea of scribbling notes that become perfectly typed documents or sketches that become stunning keynote presentations. It seems an obvious if not intuitive means of data input. To make handwriting recognition work, you would need a screen that could recognise and withstand the pressure of a pointed device tracing lines across it.

I am sure there are better ideas than these, but what all of the various comments here suggest is that the iPAd is much more intuitive device to use than a regular laptop or desktop computer. Freed from the limitations of a keyboard, who knows where it could lead?

The iPad is a potentially awesome thin client for use in medicine.

I don't know if they will make other sizes of iPads but they would be useful in some enterprise niches.

I would place that very high on any list. By processor performance I'm talking about a RAM/CPU/GPU complex as a whole, with the goal of having an iPad that can easily handle for complex pieces of software and memory hungrey software like web browsers.

Weight does not seem to be an issue. At least from comments in the various forums it seems to be a very secondary issue. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd rather have a sturdy and strong iPad over a light one.

As to a higher resolution display that is always nice but the GPU would need to improve significantly to keep the same relative performance levels. Honestly iPads display isn't that bad resolution wise. Even so it could use a better performing GPU driving it, so a retina like display would require an even greater speed up of the GPU. I'd like to think it is doable but I'm reluctant to think it is possible next year. Plus there are to many other needed improvements.

So what do you guys think?

And this relates to the iPad how?!?

The biggest problem I have with the iPad is the amount of ram under the bonnet. I would love to see cameras and faster CPU/GPU along with higher resolution display, but as a device that I use primarily for work (yes, it has completely replaced my laptop for all but Illustrator work), I'd love to have more ram. Working in Pages (I'm a writer) with files that sometimes need graphs/sheets, the iPad slows to geriatric pace and the cursor and my type trickles out.

Restarting the iPad helps, but I'd rather not have to run out of memory; it's much better to just continue working.

A higher resolution display would really help for people who use the thing all day long at work.

In all the time I've owned my iPAd, processor speed hasn't been an issue. Everything is fast. Any lag as apps load is barely noticeable. of course, that doesn't mean I wouldn't value a faster processor and more RAM.

I don't use the iPad for IWork applications. They're just not good enough yet.

Sorry, but for me, weight is an issue. This thing is considerably heavier than a hardback novel and you sure notice it when it has been balanced on your lap in bed for a while.

That said, my glass is half full. i love this machine. As it is, it is very good indeed.

It may be the case but your second paragraph kinda contradicts this. There is no doubt that between the GPU, flash memory and the CPU the iPad appears to be snappy. Most people would agree with that. The problem with speed crops up the minute you try to run code that relies on the CPU only.

Exactly! So why aren't they good enough? In my estimation two things, far to little RAM and followed by a processor that can't manage to drive a major app. There really isn't any mystery here as the A8 basis for the Apple A4 is a processor known for its low power not its speed.

It is also rather large to be an E-Book reader. This is one reason why I would like to see an iPad in the 5-7 inch range. It would give us a much lighter more handy pkatform for iOS apps. Dropping some weight off of iPad wouldn't hurt but again not at the expense of weakening the unit. That is really my only concern, i don't want toy quality construction.

It is certainly one of Apples best rev one product releases ever. The question is how will they improve it? Personally I think Apple has a long term vision that requires the iPad to become substantially more powerful. How quickly they will ramp up that power is another quuestion.

What does Flash storage cost today compared to Jan/Feb 2010? If the price is close to or nearing half what it was then, then I would not be surprised to see 32/64/128GB iPads. On the other hand, if the price of flash hasn't dropped much, then I would expect the iPad to stay at 16/32/64GB for another year.

I think it's pretty obvious that the iPad will get a resolution bump. Specifically, look at the iPhone resolution: 960x640

Now double that in each direction, for four times more pixels and you get: 1920x1280.

That would allow:

1. Perfect upscaling of iPhone apps.
2. Native 1080p.

I think Apple went with such a high res screen for iPhone specifically to take the iPad to 1920x1280. Otherwise they would have gone for a milder bump to WVGA, or something close to that.

No. The iPhone is 3:2. The iPad is 4:3. 1920x1280 is 1.6:1.


Apple couldn't care less about 1080 right now. iTunes doesn't sell over 720 and can't until our national bandwidth speed increases.

Any chance the processing power could reach 2Ghz?

Sure, eventually. On the next iteration? No chance whatsoever.

The costs are going down, but not as drastically as they were before. Since Apple doesn't like to buy on the spot, they typically tend to buy huge amounts before production, this graph may help to show that they could offer higher capacity ipads at the same price points.

(these are projections from 2006, before the iPhone and ipad were even out. If anything I would think the prices would have come down even more.)

Sure, why not?

For low power devices it is well known that you are better off adding more processors than upping clock rate dramatically. The first thing I would expect is for Apple to go to some sort of SMP machine. That could mean dual core but even quad core isn't impossible. It all depends upon being able to shrink the device to keep the price point reasonable.

Of course this implies going to a Cortex A9 derived cores so that you can get a bump in single thread performance. Considering Apples licensing deal with ARM the new CPU could incorporate a lot of Apple IP.

Another thing to consider is that it might make a lot of sense to put a big RAM array on the chip for the GPU. This isn't as radical as it may sound as caches on processors are pretty huge these days. The thought is that this would lower power while increasing performance with the video memory on chip.

In any event I would expect a more modest bump in speed maybe topping out at 1.25GHz. That may sound small but it is marketable and with a dual core Cortex A9 SMP machine would result in a very nice boost in app performance. That is you might get the equivalent of an Apple A4 running a 2GHz.

Anyone think that WiFi and 3G will be built in to every model?

Mainly because of the business market. Many corporations have little love for the cell phone companies as they generally get screwed by those companies. A device that has zero potential for 3G is attractive due to the absence of a cellular modem.

Of course the opposite is also true, many businesses can put a cell enabled iPad to good use. In the end I think the market is big enough and the price difference significant enough that Apple can offer up both models economically.

For me what would really help with the iPad models would be the movement of the GPS chip to the base models. This would vastly improve the base model as some get roped into buying the 3G model simply to get the GPS.

In any event I suspect that we will see all of the radios rolled into one chip in the future. When this happens the economics of building two slightly different models will go out the door. At that point all iPads sold will have 3G.

So the WiFi model does not have GPS?

Right. We covered this in April. Where've you been?

1. Yes will probably happen
2. Maybe
3. Maybe
4. Huh
5. Nope
6. Yes
7. Very likely
8. Quite likely
9. Nope
10. Possible, maybe just that "wide range speakers" but still mono?

My 2 cents

The speaker is already stereo. "Wide range" would be moving each component to its own side of the device.