Report details iPad 2 components, 5 million unit supply - Page 2

Originally Posted by lgutie20

I totally buy what you are saying. The improvement of tech spec does not really merit an upgrade. Usually upgrades happen when completely new features like 3 axis gyro or facetime make part of the new devices.

I do think that the iPad revolutionized the way we experience the web. It really is better at browsing the web than any other device.

Still, the iPad has not reached its full potential just yet. So much more can be done with it and I am not referring to processors or displays at all but rather this is a huge opportunity to change what we think of in terms of the way we utilize technology

Originally Posted by uguysrnuts

Will MS be dumb enough to do so?

Originally Posted by melgross

We don't know how close this really is. So far, they've all been guesses. With a number of competing tablets and phones getting 1 Gb of RAM, it might be thought that we need it too, but that may not be as true. Apple's method of multitasking needs much less RAM in the first place. When I double click the button on mine, I find 94 apps in the fast switching bar. But that isn't a problem for the device, as they aren't using RAM. The same case can't be made for Android devices, which have those apps sucking RAM and CPU cycles,
even though they're not being used while in the background, and open.

Originally Posted by spliff monkey

I have to agree with wizard and DA, something fishy about this report the specs are a little under impressive. The cameras are ho hum especially the 1MP rear camera. Even if it is in line with the IPT it's not in line with Android competitors.

I can't imagine why they would have some details on an SD slot, but still not be sure if it's going to appear. Either it's there or it isn't.

The processor and GPU sound right, but given the CPU/ GPU upgrades why not "optimize" iOS to push a retina display? I thought we all discussed the ability of the A9 dual core GPU combo as being able to push the pixels technically, no?

A retina display really makes sense in allot of ways, not the least of which would be competing with kindle in readability. The ipad screen is still too soft for text and it starkly stands against the iphone. The screen needs an upgrade IMO and would be just as much of a "Kindle Killer feature" as antireflective coatings. Further it would only make photos, videos and games look even better.

Just like the killer feature on IP4 was the screen, so to is the screen on the iPad. Especially when you consider all of the chatter that "specs don't matter" to Apple. If clock rates, RAM etc don't matter then it's the screen that does because that's all an ipad really is, a screen. Everything else inside is arguably irrelevant except maybe to developers whom Apple seems all to happy to appease when it comes to iOS API's and upgrading hardware as evidenced in this report. Dual Core A9 and GPU should make everyone on the "back-end" happy, but I don't know about the RAM

Like the cameras, 512mb of RAM is in line with other iOS devices, but not the competition. Referring to the "back-end" I think devs would also drool over 1GB of RAM and the added cost would seem to me to be minimal both in terms of dollars, physical space and power usage while it would be a huge "cost" when arguing specs with an Android competitor. It's an easy spec to exploit in marketing I don't think Apple would leave the door open even if they didn't really need the RAM. I don't think we'll see less than 1GB personally. The Dev's would be happy for quite some time for sure.

I wonder how much of a report like this based on insider bar talk? Are the components and/ or prototypes people see only part of the story? Maybe some parts will get used, some won't, maybe Apple's thinking/ talking about certain components and someone is reporting that Apple already signed the contract. People talk, often out of their butts.

Interesting to me is that this report doesn't prevent the possibility of a "pro" ipad either that perhaps a "retina" display would be used in. Further it almost corroborates a "pro" ipad by being vague about the possibility of an SD card. So maybe this information is on ipad V2 and maybe some of these other rumors apply to iPad V2 "Pro" and that's why some of the details don't add up.

I could see Apple keeping the same prices with these specs and maybe even dropping Ipad V1 down $100 if they offer it as spec'd in this report and maybe the retina screen would require a $100 price jump. I'd pay for it that's for sure.

It also makes sense to include "retina displays" only on the pro models if (as the report mentions) availability is too low. Although do we know this is true for Apple? It may be for eveyone else, but that's because Apple might have bought up the entire inventory of said screens.

A "pro" model would create a huge buzz and if you can't afford it, then there's still the almost as spiffy, also upgraded, save a few hundred bucks model with the same guts and a different screen and SSD capacity.

Also this may be why there is no mention of the larger capacity SSD. Maybe the capacity on Ipad2 will remain the same while the "pro" model get the larger storage capacities. I dunno, it just feels like we're talking about two different machines with the rumors lately.

Overall to me, this report sounds "too plausible" if you will, but I tend to be overly optimistic. I'm sure Apple will milk the current specs for what they are worth, but I was really hoping they' shoot for the stars on this one.

I still think a "wet dream" ipad is what will make Apple the king of touch devices and the timing is just right for such a thing to happen. By the time you've caught your competition with their pants down twice, you've basically won, game over. It would be impossible for many competitors to remain when there are 20 million Ipads sold and a major upgrade would almost certainly help sell that number of ipads when it's weighed against the competitions offerings.

Originally Posted by mcarling

... Anyway, Apple are more likely to transition to liquid metal than to carbon fibre.

Originally Posted by melgross

A lot of it is cost. Apple is using the best screen, the biggest batteries, the most rigid case, etc. The Moto tablet has a higher Rez, which would have been nice for Apple to have had on the first model, which I'm using to post to this thread. But it costs $800, and it's got 32GB flash. What will the battery life be? From what I've heard, it will be substantially less than 10 hours, which is a real number, not one of those "up to" numbers most other manufacturers use.

I totally agree with the concept Apple used for the iPhone/Touch, which was doubling the Rez of the screen. If it's true, which does make sense, that the high Rez screen would not be able to be made in quantity (quantity for Apple, that is), then it wouldn't be good for them to use some intermediate Rez screen, fragmenting the iPad market, which a double Rez screen wouldn't do nearly as much.

I would like to see higher Rez cameras. But we can look to the Galaxy Tab. It has higher Rez cameras, but they suck. Good cameras cost more. The iPhone costs $650. It has high quality cameras. The Touch costs half that, and the rear camera is much cheaper. The iPad actually costs less than the iPhone, but is a much bigger device, with lower margins. As the song goes "Something's gotta give!"

Originally Posted by solipsism

Those icons listed in Fast App Switcher in iOS 4.x are not necessarily using any RAM. They are just a list of your last accessed apps in the order from left to right in which you last access them. While it defeats part of Apples goal to make iOS unlike desktop OSes I do wish theyd put a badge on the icons in FAS that are still using RAM as I come across people who say something like I wish there was a way I could delete all the apps at once instead of doing them one at a time.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.

Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.

My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.

Originally Posted by kenaustus

This is my year for either the iPad or a replacement of my 3GS iPhone.

I had been waiting for the iPad as my bet was that it would have the same cameras as the iPhone - and would maintain any improvements. That looks pretty dead with these specs. I'll go for the iPhone5 and continue to wait for the iPad to catch up.

I do see the weak camera on the back as a sweet spot for competitors to go after. Hopefully it will improve quickly.

Originally Posted by melgross

Those are the apps that are fast switched. They are in the last state they were when you moved to something else. That's the entire point of the fast switching bar. I've found that every app there works that way. That's Apple's version of multitasking. It allows those apps to finish what they were doing when you leave them. When you come back, they're exactly as they were. That's why we don't need complex task managers. While you can switch off some if you think you need to, and the OS will do so if it needs the memory, I'm not sure if it's ever done that on mine, even with 256 MB RAM.

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.

Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.

My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.

Originally Posted by solipsism

That Fast App Switcher doesnt facilitate the background APIs Apple created for 3rd-party developers for iOS 4.0 SDK, which includes improved capabilities for a saved state.. You can hit the home button and any process that needs to complete its task or continue running in the background will do so. The FAS is just a list of the last apps youve used in the order youve used them from left-to-right.

People call it a multitask bar, but its not. There are a couple tests people can do (outside of jailbreaking and using sys monitor apps* that prove that its 1) not all your app running in RAM, and 2) that you dont need to double-tap the Home Button in order to use multitasking", something else that people seem to think.

1) Power cycle your iPhone running iOS 4.0. If those are a list of all apps running in RAM then they should be gone after a restart, unless you think Apple also re-loads all these apps into RAM.

2) Start an app you know that saves its state or runs in the background, like TomTom. Tap the Home Button, go to some other app, then back to the original app.

Originally Posted by melgross

I'm not a carbon fiber person when it comes to the iPad. They certainly won't be able to make it thinner. It would need to be thicker, if it were to be as rigid, unless they used a magnesium frame around the edges. But then the center would feel flimsier. Like more materials, it is at its most rigid when given a slight curve, the way the current model is designed. It's also likely that if they do use it, and keep the same thickness, that with less room inside, something else would have to give, such as battery size. Unless they have even better batteries, and are willing to give up better battery life, that battery life would be shortened.

Originally Posted by lgutie20

You are totally right: Nothing is better than an amazing TV screen and with AirPlay you will get just that. It would still be nice to hold all your movies on this one device.

The cool thing about the iPod was the fact that I didn't have to keep looking for CDs and never forgot them because I could always find them in one place. That is how I feel about the iPad, it is like a well of information that just allows me to carry all my media everywhere, and if there ever is the need to view something on the device because I'm in the middle of an airport or just out and about, it is a viable option superior to the iPod or the iPhone.

I can just see myself going to a friends house with my iPad and asking them if they want to watch anything from the list of films I have as opposed to just taking three or four DVDs with me and running out of options.

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't think you've got this quite right. EVERY app in that bar starts exactly where it was left off, and that's part of the definition of fast app switching. It's easy for me to check, as I own the iPad, and i've been using it since the 3G first came out. There has been a big difference in the way they respond due to this. But the app has to be written so as to take advantage of it. If it hasn't, then it won't. Maybe that's what you mean. Also, apps that don,t need to be doing anything in the background, won't be. When you turn off the iPad, you're not turning it off. If you turn it off, it may react differently, but maybe not. It's true that you don' need to double tap the button to do this, but it's often more convenient, ESP. If you have a lot of folders of apps, and they're on more than one screen.

Originally Posted by tonton

I didn't get an iPad 1 in the end, and I am still really hoping that even if it's not retina, the iPad2 has a higher resolution display than 1024x768. That's really the only thing I want, along with the increased processing power, graphics power and memory requirements to go with it and support more complex apps. This report, if true, is really disappointing.

Originally Posted by geometro

If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...

Originally Posted by therealestmc

i feel the same way. the only advantage the ipad 2 will have on the competition is the itunes ecosystem. the xoom will rape the ipad 2 if this article is correct.

Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore

Very nice. I'll keep my ipad1 and wait for iPad3.

Originally Posted by geometro

If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...

Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody

Like everyone, I prefer it to be stiff also, it just seems to me that if it was going to be aluminium they would keep it basically the same shape as it is now and if they are going to try for lighter yet still reasonably stiff then carbon fibre is the way to go. I could be completely wrong of course.

I'm pretty much screwed in that no matter what it's made out of I'm going to be on the yearly upgrade bandwagon anyway, just like the iPhone. My whole life revolves around these two devices now and I can't imagine why I wouldn't buy the new model each year. Unless I can't afford it that is.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Several things bother me about this "article".

1) I did some surfing (including my brokerage accounts news feeds) and cannot find any link to the "original" report: Concord Securities Ming-Chi Kuo

2) these are fairly "vanilla" specs that anyone could put together

3) the 5 million units for the 1st quarter reflects the fact that the 1st quarter is 1/3 gone: 7.5 x 2/3 == 5 million

4) 512 MB RAM seems to be a mismatch with the other hardware specs -- 1 GB would be more inline.

So, there is nothing new here -- just a rehash of bits from many of the stories that have been floating around for the last few weeks.

MEH

Originally Posted by Realistic

Better keep your DVD collection small if you really plan on doing this. Flash memory is very expensive and Flash memory beyond 128GB is not even being manufactured in the quantities that Apple would need even if the memory was very cheap.

Originally Posted by melgross

I'm on the same bandwagon with the iPad, and even though we upgraded our 3G's to the 4, if FIOS gets to us this year, we'll move to Verizon and get the 5. I wish though that Apple would offer a universal 3G model iPad instead of two models.

Originally Posted by solipsism

1) I think you are confusing the fast app switching API that developers can easily use so their app comes back to the previous state with the Fast App Switcher, an iOS 4.0 interface for seeing all the recently used apps you’ve ever opened iOS in the order you’ve last opened them, from left to right.

2) Yes, when you turn off the iPad you are turning it off. I used the term “power cycle” just to be clear I didn’t mean disabling power to the display.

3) I have never found FAS to be convenient. I have pretty much every app on my home screen, expect for my 2nd page for new apps I’m still debating on keeping. I prefer the multi-tocuh swipes found in the 4.3 betas. It does the same thing as FAS, it cycles through your apps as they were last used without having to first double-tap the Home Button and then choose an app.

Originally Posted by therealestmc

i, too, am definitely sitting out this one if that's the kinda specs they will deliver. perhaps, i might get a xoom or something.

Originally Posted by lgutie20

I hear you and you might be right.

Steve Jobs at All Things D spoke about the tablet being part of the post PC era. If these tablet computers are going to be our primary tool on a regular basis, I think it should compete with PCs in many levels. I strongly think storage should be one of them.

If they can fit 256GB inside the new MacBook Air (knowing that more than 75% of the inside is occupied by battery), they just have to be able to at the very least fit half of that into the iPad.

Another thing to think about is, what model of iPad is the most popular one? Apple must be selling more of one model than any of the rest and I have a feeling (but I might be wrong) that the 16GB iPad is not it. I really think that this model will be terminated this next release. It feels exactly like buying a 4GB iPhone! Totally pointless for people who own a lot of content.

I really feel that if we could have a 128GB iPad, then we wouldn't necessarily spend money on an external hard drive to be carrying things around because it would all be on this one device.

I know storage is not the one reason to buy an iPad. It has many other benefits. But, more storage is just another reason to trade in a netbook, laptop, desktop or external hardrive for the iPad.

Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

You are going to looooooove FiOS... it is fast.

Originally Posted by Robin Huber

Really? Rape?

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't think you've got this quite right. EVERY app in that bar starts exactly where it was left off, and that's part of the definition of fast app switching.

Originally Posted by melgross

Average selling price is $625.

Flash prices have remained high over the past 18 months.

Originally Posted by melgross

It's very silly to buy something just based on the hardware specs. I can assure you that my gen. 1 iPad is more than fast enough for almost everything. The OS has a lot to do with this, and iOs is much better than Android in this. What will you do when another Android tablet three months later has better specs than the Zoom? Will you then buy that?

No matter what specs those tablets will have, the iPad will still WORK better, and will have much better apps, as well as many more of them, in more categories. Many of the Android apps out there have been shown to be ripoff of other Android apps. dozens of apps from MS, for example are written by malware authors. the same thing for many other apps.

All in all, it's not worth it.

Originally Posted by IQ78

Unlike the iPod market (and possibly the iPhone market, due to limited # of carriers), the iPad is not near saturation.

What does this mean?

It means that Apple can tap a huge market without requiring people to "upgrade" their current iPads. Only when the iPad approaches saturation (meaning those who would buy an iPad have already bought one) does Apple need to create huge upgrades with features that drive people to upgrade their product. And often the tipping point of an upgrade is 2 version delta.

Apple has been timing their feature improvement, major features perfectly in the past, so I'm not sure why they wouldn't know what they are doing with the iPad.

I would guess this new feature set will cause some upgrades (maybe not too many), but will drive sales for those who wait for ver2 of a product. So ver3 will cause large ver1 upgrades and a few ver2 upgrades and still drive new sales. Once ver4 is out, the market may be near saturated but by that time they have a user distribution of upgrades.

There is some benefit to having a slight spread in the user-base.

Originally Posted by melgross

I don't agree about the display. While we all want an x2 Rez display, I can understand the difficulties of producing it at high volume. The pixels would be a quarter the size of the current ones, and how many dead ones would you accept? So far, my iPad has none.

I also disagree with the notion of a Pro model with a higher Rez screen. The worst thong Apple could do would be to bifurcate the line that way. Everyone must be able to use the same apps the same way on a new gen device. What you want is where Android has problems. Not good.

Originally Posted by Berp

A neat scenario that simply puts my previous forecast to shame.

I figured Apple would out spec the competition in year two of the iPad, which is in fact year 1*of the nascent tablet market. My logic was based on strong arming tactics of sucking the oxygen out of the competing arguments set essentially on hardware specs. I had the iPhone 4 with Retina and the FaceTime/AirPlay hardware infrastructure as a precedent and as a prime reference.

But the contexts of these iOS devices are indeed very different in terms of development stages and market deployments. IPhone is a vector of platform maturity, iPad direly needs consolidated platform integration. Your analysis reflects that reality; mine anchors on hardware irrelevancy, tech specs being muffled into backstage small talks.

Thanks for the enlightenment...!

Originally Posted by uguysrnuts

Will MS be dumb enough to do so?