or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's next-gen iPad to have three models, including CDMA - rumor
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's next-gen iPad to have three models, including CDMA - rumor

post #1 of 45
Thread Starter 
In addition to the existing Wi-Fi-only and UMTS models, Apple's forthcoming second-generation iPad will also have a third, Verizon-compatible CDMA version, according to a new rumor.

Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes reported Tuesday that Apple is expected to build Wi-Fi, UMTS and CDMA models of the next iPad in a respective build ratio of 3:4:3. Production of the device is expected to start as early as the first half of January, with about a half-million iPads expected to be assembled.

Citing industry sources, the report claimed that between 60 and 65 percent of current iPad shipments are the UMTS 3G model. Because of this, Apple is expected to work even more closely with wireless partners for the second-generation tablet.

"In addition to wireless functions, Apple is also working on strengthening the iPad 2's anti-smudge and anti-reflective treatments in order to compete against Kindle and attract more consumers," the report said.

Sources estimated that Apple will produce about 40 million iPads in 2011, accounting for as much as three-quarters of the tablet market. That estimate is significantly lower than the 6 million per month capacity reported by DigiTimes earlier this month.

The report also indicated that Apple is expected to have shipped about 16 million iPads in 2010, and between 2 million and 3 million units will remain in the channel at the start of 2011. That number is expected to satisfy demand as Apple gradually stops production of the first-generation device, in time for the debut of "iPad 2."

Earlier this month, DigiTimes reported that Apple passed on an active-matrix organic LED display in its second-generation iPad because of constrained supplies of the displays. Those insufficient supplies have allegedly prompted Apple to stick with a backlit LCD display for the forthcoming device.
post #2 of 45
It wouldn't surprise me, but the data plans out there are still very expensive and wifi is becoming ubiquitous anywhere I would use one.

I'm looking forward to an iPad with cameras and GPS. Beyond those two features, nothing is going to get me all that excited. I don't think the next version of the iPad will be revolutionary, just evolutionary... which isn't a bad thing. The first version of the iPad is absolutely solid.
post #3 of 45
It only stands to reason that if a Verizon iPhone is coming, perhaps a Verizon iPad is also.

Considering Apple preferes to have ONE model of phone (plus the old model), it could likely be CDMA and GSM compatible. So will the iPad.
post #4 of 45
Can't say I'd be surprised with the addition of a CDMA-capable iPad -- it only makes good business sense.

I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.

Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".

While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:

front-facing camera for FaceTime
faster A? processor
increased SSD (Flash) storage
thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)

Less likely but highly desired:
Retina display
SD card slot

And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! Currently, the iPad syncs one users Mail, iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and Safari bookmarks which doesnt work very well for a shared family device. Sure, other family members can access most of THEIR content through the internet such as webmail, but it is not an ideal solution. The current configuration also doesn't allow for much privacy or parental controls. If the device is unlocked for a child to play games on, he/she can accidentally delete emails, etc. I don't believe Apple would lose sales as some claim by supporting multiple users. Quite the opposite; I would rather have several iPads in various rooms of the house that any family member can log into than have user-specific iPads that family members always had to keep track of. A iPhone is a personal device. An iPad SHOULD BE a SHARED device.
post #5 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Considering Apple preferes to have ONE model of phone (plus the old model), it could likely be CDMA and GSM compatible.

This is not possible with the size constraints and power efficiency required for the iPhone 4 at least looking at all the world mode chips I do know about which, ironically, cover less bands than the current iPhone.

Quote:
So will the iPad.

Looking at the iPads internals this would be possible in that space, however there are cost and power usage issues to consider, not to mention how the space changes if Apple changes the iPads design.

Theyd have to weigh all these factors against the number of people who would switch their devices between carriers to see if it warrants all those hits against their next device. Since the iPad is the only item with cellular radios theyve chosen to not lock to any carrier its really the only one who has a chance, but I wouldnt bet money on it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #6 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh View Post

It wouldn't surprise me, but the data plans out there are still very expensive and wifi is becoming ubiquitous anywhere I would use one.

I'm looking forward to an iPad with cameras and GPS. Beyond those two features, nothing is going to get me all that excited. I don't think the next version of the iPad will be revolutionary, just evolutionary... which isn't a bad thing. The first version of the iPad is absolutely solid.

I don't care so much about the cameras and GPS, but I would like it to be faster (I'd like PDF rendering to be instantaneous) and I like the rumors of a flat back (the rounded back was an odd choice).
post #7 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post

Can't say I'd be surprised with the addition of a CDMA-capable iPad -- it only makes good business sense.

I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.

Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".

While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:

front-facing camera for FaceTime
faster A? processor
increased SSD (Flash) storage
thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)

Less likely but highly desired:
Retina display
SD card slot

And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! Currently, the iPad syncs one users Mail, iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and Safari bookmarks which doesnt work very well for a shared family device. Sure, other family members can access most of THEIR content through the internet such as webmail, but it is not an ideal solution. The current configuration also doesn't allow for much privacy or parental controls. If the device is unlocked for a child to play games on, he/she can accidentally delete emails, etc. I don't believe Apple would lose sales as some claim by supporting multiple users. Quite the opposite; I would rather have several iPads in various rooms of the house that any family member can log into than have user-specific iPads that family members always had to keep track of. A iPhone is a personal device. An iPad SHOULD BE a SHARED device.

Thoughtful posting. I would like to see all wireless devices usable on any wireless provider as long as they are subscribed.
post #8 of 45
It could well be that Apple will offer the current iPad in WIFI form only at a reduced price as an entry-level option. Let's say instead of the current US price of $499, bring it in at $399.

Then bring out a lighter second-gen iPad that comes with UMTS and/or CDMA standard. GIve it 32G of RAM, a faster processor, cameras, better battery life, and have it come in at maybe $549. Offer another version or two with more RAM.

As for the question of switching to OLED, there is no reason to do so at this time. LED works just fine and is substantially cheaper. Supply constraints are beside the point.

Apple does the above and they'll continue to dominate the tablet market. What other company is in a position to offer a 10" tablet for $399 US or any product able to keep up with the second-gen iPad as it is likely to be configured. And what other company can offer such a rational, integrated device that is so easy to use and acquire software for.

Apple's advantage, mainly, is that while other manufacturers are just starting to work with the touchscreen tablet format, Apple has been building a device along those lines for several years in the form of the Touch. That's why the first-gen iPad is such a capable well-thought-out device.
post #9 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post

I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.

On Amazon the stats typically show the cheapest model (16GB WiFi) as the best seller with the most expensive (64GB WiFi+3G) model as the second best seller.

Note that you dont have to incur any additional bills to use the 3G model. I have it just in case I need internet and thats the only option. It also affords me the use of the GPS and what I assume is better resell value. Least of all, possibly slightly better WiFi since the top portion is a plastic.

Quote:
Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".

They may make deals with Apple on this, but the fact that Apple didnt lock or subsidize the original iPad makes me wonder if they simply didnt want this to be another device with contracted data plan.


Quote:
While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:

front-facing camera for FaceTime
faster A? processor
increased SSD (Flash) storage
thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)

√ Front-facing camera. Apples pushing FaceTime hard, at least a FF camera seems inevitable.
√ Faster and/or more efficient CPU
≈ Im not so sure they will go with 128GB. Has NAND production come to a point that its feasible to make the jump again at the same price point? Since they use more than a single NAND chip, Apple could use 3x32GB to offer 96GB in the high-end iPad, but its not like anyone else is matching them well on price, size, and capacity and I doubt CES will change that.
≠ Note this technically feasible with the current iPads space but requires a lot more work that any world mode phone Ive ever seen. Typically, these phones have the four GSM 2G bands, the CDMA bands for that countrys carrier its locked to, and the UMTS 3G bands that covers most of Europe. Apple has five UMTS bands in the iPhone 4. Four of these are actively used around the world, yet they still dont cover NTT DoCoMo, Japans largest carrier, or T-Mobile USA, the US smallest major MNO. For Apple to add CDMA bands I theyd have to add a lot more bands than any world mode device on the market has ever had. All that comes with a cost and simply may not be worth it, even thought it would likely be technically feasible in the current iPad.

Quote:
Less likely but highly desired:
Retina display
SD card slot

≠ You didnt define what you mean by Retina Display, but assuming all the rational definitions its not going to happen.
≈ I can see an SD card slot happening before a USB interface port, but this also seems very unlikely with the way Apple operates.

Quote:
And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS!...

That would be a nice feature but Id wait for the iOS 5.0 rumours to begin before starting on SW updates.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #10 of 45
Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units? Apple will sell those in about 5 days.

If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?
post #11 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homie View Post

Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units? Apple will sell those in about 5 days.

If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?

If the new model has distinct hardware ( faster processor or camera(s) ) I can see them keeping the old model with significant price cuts.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #12 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Homie View Post

Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units? Apple will sell those in about 5 days.

If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?

The iPad 1 will not drop to $150. It costs more than that to make. Apple does like their margins, after all, and the iPad is a little thin on margin right now.
post #13 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

The iPad 1 will not drop to $150. It costs more than that to make. Apple does like their margins, after all, and the iPad is a little thin on margin right now.

And yet the cheapest iPod Touch - basically an iPhone 4 inside - costs $200. I see cheapest iPad heading that way - if margins are kept on the higher models they wont suffer.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #14 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

The iPad 1 will not drop to $150. It costs more than that to make. Apple does like their margins, after all, and the iPad is a little thin on margin right now.

He suggested BY $150, not TO $150. I still agree with you, the price won't drop by $150. I could see $100 drop as the max for the old models, if any
post #15 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh View Post

It wouldn't surprise me, but the data plans out there are still very expensive and wifi is becoming ubiquitous anywhere I would use one.

Yes, but if the iPad can be used with more carriers then that enourages competitive pricing. AND the rumor I heard is that it is not separate units but the 'cell' iPad would have both in it. Unlocked. So you could flp back and forth as you please.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #16 of 45
i'm looking forward to picking up a 2nd Gen. hoping for:
front and rear cameras,
matte / smudge free screen,
same ram as iPhone4,
maybe a 1.3GHz A4
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.
lighter would also be a plus.
all at the same cost with bumped memory [32Gig at today's 16Gig price, and 64Gig at 32Gig price]
post #17 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post


And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! .

While everything else on your list could happen as opponent prices etc come own, this is the one that likely will not. Apple probably does not share your insistent view that the iPad should be a multiuser item. After all this is not a computer. And it will be quite a while before it has the internal kick to try to make such a claim if Apple wanted to go that way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Homie View Post

Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units?

Remember that these reports are coming from folks not actually part of Apple who are most likely being fed garbage by someone wanting to make a quick buck.


Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.

Or No they are not robbing you. First off, that $29 price has never been confirmed as correct. And second, the supporting tech is not free for the taking. Companies have to pay licensing fees which can be rather high. Say $100 a produced unit. It is possible that Apple is making no additional profit on the 3G models. Without a confirmed component and licensing costs we can't say

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #18 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

i'm looking forward to picking up a 2nd Gen. hoping for:
front and rear cameras,
matte / smudge free screen,
same ram as iPhone4,
maybe a 1.3GHz A4
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.
lighter would also be a plus.
all at the same cost with bumped memory [32Gig at today's 16Gig price, and 64Gig at 32Gig price]

3G as a standard is where this is headed but for a first-gen product, Apple clearly hit a home run by delivering a 10" tablet for around $500 considering everybody else is talking about hitting that price point initially with 7" devices.
post #19 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

While everything else on your list could happen as opponent prices etc come own, this is the one that likely will not. Apple probably does not share your insistent view that the iPad should be a multiuser item. After all this is not a computer. And it will be quite a while before it has the internal kick to try to make such a claim if Apple wanted to go that way.

This is also one of the reasons I haven't bought one. For me, this is meant to be a living room / coffee table item that every member of the family should be able to use. I am not going to buy 4 and then have 4 lying around and you get the wrong one all the time, nor do I want free access of all family members to all family member's e-mail.

This is one of the area's where Apple has not got it right yet. There are more examples: though all family members have their own CD/DVD collection, it is easy for physical media to share in the house. But not so for digital media. There are some options (like Home Sharing), but they are not as flexible as CD sharing (e.g. what I access via home sharing, I cannot put on my iPod to listen to, whereas that CD of a family member can be put on my iPod via iTunes.

Apple: please solve the complicated user experience of family sharing of digital sources.
post #20 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by desarc View Post

i'm looking forward to picking up a 2nd Gen. hoping for:
matte / smudge free screen,

I don’t see how a matte screen is possible with a glass overlay. Even with a matte panel you negate the purpose by infusing a smooth glass panel to it. I don’t see how or why Apple could or would go to a plastic overlay, but I’m all ears.

Quote:
same ram as iPhone4,

I think that’s a gimme. I think the bigger question is: Will they exceed the RAM of the iPhone 4?

Quote:
maybe a 1.3GHz A4

I wonder if they will continue to list the GHz of the CPU or simply refer to by it’s marketing name now. Oddly, they mentioned the CPU speed of the A4 with last year’s iPad, something they’ve never done before with an iDevice. Granted 1GHz is a demarkation point that could be used for marketing, but they haven’t used it since. It’s assumed the A4 in the iPhone 4 and G4 iPod Touch is 1GHz but underclocked to save on power, but it’s not listed.

Since the code makes a difference on how fast these handheld devices feel Apple doesn’t have to compete on simple HW specs in order to have the fastest device on the market from the user’s PoV. With dual-core Cortex-A9s coming out in new tablets Apple may simply go back to competing on the merits of the total package.

Quote:
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.

I don’t know where this notion comes from but $27.10 is iSuppli’s BOM for the cellular chip and GPS. It’s not accounting for the testing, licensing, engineering, building, etc.


Can we honestly say that entire cardwould cost $27 and still yeild Apple their typical profit? You’re also not accounting for the way products are marketed. The more you sell of an item the lower your profit per unit can be to maximize total net profits. Apple and others are likely to sell you the entry level unit with less profit to attack more buyers knowing that a subset of buyers will pay a premium for the products with more features. Since these items with more features cost more you typically get less buyers which means you have to make more profit per unit to equal less expensive items in that group. So when you say they are charging “too much” of a premium for a feature, you have to consider that the entry level item 1) may be sold less than their standard profit margin, and 2) that they aren’t selling as many.

Also note that carriers still sell ‘3G’ USB cards for PCs at rates higher than $130, typically at $250 from what I’ve seen in the US, and these don’t come with GPS.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #21 of 45
As the iPad was initially rolling out, I made a decision to wait for the second gen. version. It's been really painful, because I SO want one to play with!

I'm less interested in cameras and GPS, and more interested in what sort of spec. increase there will be.

The thing is, I keep having to ask myself, "Do I really want to spend the money on this, considering I have an iMac, a MacBook, and an iPhone." I mean, I definitely want one, and there have been times where situations presented themselves and I thought, "Dammit. This is the perfect time for an iPad!"

I guess I'll just have to see what the pricing is.
post #22 of 45
Digitimes has proven unreliable time and time again. Their rumors are as trustwothy as Shaw Wu's.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #23 of 45
What? No 4G Sprint iPad?
post #24 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by gctwnl View Post

This is also one of the reasons I haven't bought one. For me, this is meant to be a living room / coffee table item that every member of the family should be able to use. I am not going to buy 4 and then have 4 lying around and you get the wrong one all the time, nor do I want free access of all family members to all family member's e-mail.

I totally agree with you, however I'll probably pick up version 2.0 anyway and hope that multiple users will be added in the next iOS release. If the base flash storage increases to 32GB, another obstacle would be removed as some might say that there isn't enough on-board storage for multiple users' files.

And I totally disagree with the post that said an iPad isn't a shared device. Any electronic device that is meant to be left on an end table, coffee table, countertop or night stand is a shared device.
post #25 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by SSquirrel View Post

He suggested BY $150, not TO $150. I still agree with you, the price won't drop by $150. I could see $100 drop as the max for the old models, if any

They already dropped them $100 before Christmas in the case of refurbished iPads. I doubt Apple was selling them at a loss.
post #26 of 45
And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! .

This is the key to Ipad2 being a super success. Make no mistake Ipad2 will Be better than the first, the only question is will Apple beef it up enough to be the Superstar of 2011
post #27 of 45
Major Question: Will Verizon sag in response to hosting iPad/iPhone traffic the way ATT did? How real is the aggrandizement of Verizon by disgruntled ATT users?

I don't know how real this impression is. What makes people think that Verizon will really be any better? Advertising hype? Lack of meeting the challenges in the Real World? Spare bandwidth ready to take on Apple sauce?
post #28 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuzzMega View Post

Major Question: Will Verizon sag in response to hosting iPad/iPhone traffic the way ATT did? How real is the aggrandizement of Verizon by disgruntled ATT users?

I don't know how real this impression is. What makes people think that Verizon will really be any better? Advertising hype? Lack of meeting the challenges in the Real World? Spare bandwidth ready to take on Apple sauce?

Back in 2007, Id think so, but the iPhone paved the way for data-heavy phones that are now a big part of every carrier so if they get the iPhone next year it wont be as big of a shock that AT&T likely had.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #29 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post

And I totally disagree with the post that said an iPad isn't a shared device. Any electronic device that is meant to be left on an end table, coffee table, countertop or night stand is a shared device.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BUSHMAN4 View Post

And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! .

This is the key to Ipad2 being a super success. Make no mistake Ipad2 will Be better than the first, the only question is will Apple beef it up enough to be the Superstar of 2011

Not picking on you in particular -- While sharing an iPad might appear desirable, is it practical!

Think about the way a Mac is shared among several users:
-- all applications are in the /Applications folder and available to all users
-- each user has a "home" folder -- /Users/Richard, in my case
-- within the "home folder" are all the files that are unique (private) to that particular user
---- Desktop
---- Documents
---- Downloads
---- Library
---- Movies
---- Music
---- Pictures
---- Public
---- Sites

Most of us are familiar with the Desktop, Documents, Downloads, Movies, Music and Pictures folder contents.

The Library folder contains things unique to the user's use of the system -- things like:
-- preference settings for applications
-- status settings for applications, e.g. game level and score for this user
-- preference settings for the system
-- caches
-- mail data (sent and received) including attachments
-- calendar data
-- contacts data


So, we want to sync information for multiple users to a single iPad! Lets start with a simple thing, content;

Say, we have 5 users in the home and each has 4 different [currently] favorite movies at 1.5 GB each: 5 x 4 x 1.5GB == 30 GB for movies. We have a problem with storage for movie content.

We have a similar problem for photo and music content.

OK, lets say we can cut back on the movies, photos, and music and allow each user 3 GB for his content 5 x 3GB == 30 GB.


We all can share all the games and all the apps... Right? ...Right... ...But say I was playing Bejeweled at a certain level, then quit. When I next start Bejeweled it resumes right where I left off, current game, saved scores, etc. Unless, Unless, Sis played Bejeweled after me -- then all my status and settings are lost and replaced with hers.

This is a problem with games (and other apps) on the iPad because they are not designed like games (and other apps) on a Mac -- they do not save settings status and caches for each user.


Actually, you have a similar problem with movies. Big Sister starts watching Casa Blanca and gets half way through... little Bro gets on the iPad and starts Casa Blanca from the beginning -- Big Pister is really sissed -- little bro has lost her position in the movie. I'm Shocked!

We have a similar problem with any iPad app that saves and resumes state so the user can continue where he left off -- virtually all apps -- because they are not designed to accommodate multiple users.


OK, say, Apple, and the app developers can rectify this to work the same way as it works with multiple users on the Mac.


Assume we can share any and all apps on the iPad among multiple users.

Assume we can share common content on the iPad among multiple users.

Assume we can secure each user's private content (mail, contacts, etc.) on the iPad with a userID password..


How do we cet all that stuff on the iPad?


In our household, that stuff is spread across 7 Macs and 5 Users.

Even if we could serially/cumulatively sync a single iPad to multiple Macs it would be a real PITA, and take forever.

BTW, we have 2 iPads -- soon to be 3 -- so this will be PITA x 3.


For example, we have a general rule in our household that all iTunes App Store purchases are done on a singe Mac. All iDevices sync apps from this Mac so each can have a copy of any of the apps.

Periodically, someone will get an iTunes gift card and download an App to their iDevice. It becomes difficult (sometimes impossible) to share that among the other iDevices -- sometimes we must repurchase the app.


Because of past usage, we have iTunes Music Store purchases allowed on several users on several Macs. We consolidate these on a Media-Library (Mac Mini) authorized for each iTMS account.

Individual users synch everything (except apps) on their iDevices to their individual iTMS account on whatever Mac it exists.

Each user's iDevice is synched to the central "App" Mac to get apps only.


The point of all this: without some rethinking, redesign and coordination with developers -- Multi-User support for the iPad will be, at best, a mediocre implementation -- something Apple avoids like the plague.

Hopefully, over time, Apple will address and resolve this issue.

Hopefully, Apple will do it in a way that each family member will not require ITSC training and certification -- Information Technology Sync Coordinator.


Finally, the iPad is a "magical" device! It is so "magical" that multiple users want to use the iPad.. at the same time.

It may be that the "Multi-User iPad" solution is provided by N+1 iPads (where N is the number of people in the household)... Each iPad with a different color case.

I am serious about this! When you consider the cost of a PGP, computer, TV, PMP, etc. for each household member -- a $500 device for each person is a pretty cost-effective solution!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #30 of 45
Good argument, Dick.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #31 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post

And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS!

I want multiple user support too.

With a front-facing camera, and iPhoto-like face recognition, it would be a no-brainer to automatically log in to that user's account as well.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #32 of 45
I think better antiglare coating is a must, I love my ipad, but there's so much glare going on there in so many situations, it just tires my fairly old eyes, much more than my new air or my (matte) do. I sure hope they are able to do something more about this. It's just not enough the way it is right now for a lot of users. Some of course, have no problem with it, but that's life.
post #33 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Good argument, Dick.

Mmm...but really what most folks would want is just independent secure email, texting, social media and calendar logins.

Sharing movies, apps, etc is fine really.
post #34 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Mmm...but really what most folks would want is just independent secure email, texting, social media and calendar logins.

Sharing movies, apps, etc is fine really.

I dont disagree wit that at all. Ive been wanting to at least get a Guest Account option for iOS since the original iPhone. What I imagine is a toggle on/off switch in Settings where I can choose which apps to allow and if this Guest Account requires a PIN, and disable Push Services when in use.

But Dicks argument is good. There is are a lot of things to consider. Would a Guest Account run atop a regular User Account? Do you still get pop ups if its turned on? Does having multiple User Accounts would mean that each is sandboxed into its own storage space, so does that mean each has to load in and out of RAM as you switch users? How fast would it be to switch users on the relatively slow ARM CPUs? How does this affect getting Push services when another account is logged in? Does it make sense to have the overhead of Fast User Switching on iOS with multiple User Accounts logged in at once? How much privacy can be had when Push Services can reveal so much on a device and how much does this inhibit the user experience if you prohibit such things?

Honestly, I stick with requesting a Guest Account because I think its the only one that seems achievable and remotely feasible.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #35 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacinScott View Post

SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS!

I can honestly say its not going to happen.

Why would they when they can sell 2 iPads?

When the next model comes out there will be a flood of people selling their old V1 iPads and this is when people can pick up a second or a third.
Apple knows this.

And because of this they are not going to put multiple users access into the current iPads. It would mean that people would only NEED one and not HAVE to buy 2 or more for the family.

Its smart marketing.
post #36 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

I don't care so much about the cameras and GPS, but I would like it to be faster (I'd like PDF rendering to be instantaneous) and I like the rumors of a flat back (the rounded back was an odd choice).

With a rounded back, it's easier to pick it up from a flat surface. I own both 3gs and iphone 4, and I really hate iphone 4, it's hard for me to pick it up.
post #37 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Mmm...but really what most folks would want is just independent secure email, texting, social media and calendar logins.

Sharing movies, apps, etc is fine really.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I don’t disagree wit that at all. I’ve been wanting to at least get a Guest Account option for iOS since the original iPhone. What I imagine is a toggle on/off switch in Settings where I can choose which apps to allow and if this Guest Account requires a PIN, and disable Push Services when in use.

But Dick’s argument is good. There is are a lot of things to consider. Would a Guest Account run atop a regular User Account? Do you still get pop ups if it’s turned on? Does having multiple User Accounts would mean that each is sandboxed into its own storage space, so does that mean each has to load in and out of RAM as you switch users? How fast would it be to switch users on the relatively slow ARM CPUs? How does this affect getting Push services when another account is logged in? Does it make sense to have the overhead of Fast User Switching on iOS with multiple User Accounts logged in at once? How much privacy can be had when Push Services can reveal so much on a device and how much does this inhibit the user experience if you prohibit such things?

Honestly, I stick with requesting a Guest Account because I think it’s the only one that seems achievable and remotely feasible.

Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

I can honestly say its not going to happen.

Why would they when they can sell 2 iPads?

When the next model comes out there will be a flood of people selling their old V1 iPads and this is when people can pick up a second or a third.
Apple knows this.

And because of this they are not going to put multiple users access into the current iPads. It would mean that people would only NEED one and not HAVE to buy 2 or more for the family.

Its smart marketing.

I agree that it would be nice to pick up an iPad (or any device) and log in and have private access to my private stuff -- call it a guest account or whatever!

But, it would be difficult (not impossible, but difficult) for the iPad to anticipate that I was going to log in and have my stuff ready to view -- a several second, or several minute, delay while it got my stuff.

Good!

Since it can let me get my stuff (email, calendar, texting, social media, etc.) -- why can't it remember where I was watching a movie, playing a game, writing a document...

How hard can that be?

But, still, it would need to wait until I login -- then go get the status/pointers/files to the stuff that I was working or playing with -- it doesn't know when I am going to log in.

At some point the iPad becomes just another computer -- I login and tell it who I am, then it goes and gets my stuff.

What has happened?

The login, the iPad, the whatever... has gotten between me and my stuff -- it is not mine -- it is not me -- it is no longer magical.

Damn it! I am important! I deserve to have a little magic in my life! I deserve a device that reflects what I am and what I want... what I am doing, and with what I am doing it!.

I would pay $50 a month to have that kind of magic in my life!

But, hey, I can get that magic for $500 and it will last at least 3 years -- or $13 per month.

You telling' me I'm not worth $13/month worth of magic?

Damn straight, I'm worth $13/month worth of magic!

So is everyone I know worth $13/month worth of magic!


And, that's the problem/solution.

The iPad is magically personal... The Personal Computer is not!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #38 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by -AG- View Post

And because of this they are not going to put multiple users access into the current iPads. It would mean that people would only NEED one and not HAVE to buy 2 or more for the family.

Its smart marketing.

Big companies might want a work user account and a personal user account.
post #39 of 45
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Big companies might want a work user account and a personal user account.

I agree... but, that's different than a general multi-user device.

With a work account and a personal account the iPad can do its magic -- and make the device yours -- personally or business -- anticipating your every need.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #40 of 45
Doubt it. LTE model would make more sense at this point in time. CDMA = provider locking, something that Apple has been avoiding with the iPad.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple's next-gen iPad to have three models, including CDMA - rumor
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's next-gen iPad to have three models, including CDMA - rumor