or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple component makers downplay rumors of Retina iPad 3 arriving in 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple component makers downplay rumors of Retina iPad 3 arriving in 2011

post #1 of 24
Thread Starter 
Component makers for Apple's iPad claim that the company has released its roadmap for higher-resolution touchscreen tablets, but the project is still at the "initial planning stage" and an upgraded iPad is unlikely to come later this year, according to a new report.

Insiders suggest that Apple could choose AMOLED technology or a high-resolution standard as part of its plan to upgrade the image quality on the iPad, DigiTimes reported on Monday.

"Sources from touch panel makers pointed out that Apple recently released its latest tablet PC plan and is asking the panel makers to provide products that are capable to support higher image quality than the current iPad 2," the report read.

"Apple may even choose AMOLED panel or panel that support Full HD standard to accomplish the plan. However, since the project is still at the initial planning stage, the actual products are unlikely to appear in 2011."

Sources also cautioned that Apple may hold off on moving to AMOLED because rival Samsung mostly controls the technology. "If Apple is adopting AMOLED panel into its device, Apple would be facing a great risk having the key technologies being held by its competitors," the report noted.

Upstream component makers pointed out that, given the production ramp up for the iPad 2, launching an iPad 3 this year would "simply bite off share" from the iPad 2.

Further quashing rumors of an iPad 3 in 2011, sources said that they have yet to receive "any notice for next generation iPad products" and do not believe the iPad 2 is a "transitional product."

Even before the iPad 2 had been announced, rumors emerged earlier this year that Apple would release an iPad 3 in 2011.

Those rumors appeared to have been put to rest after Apple CEO Steve Jobs declared 2011 "the year of iPad 2." However, intermittent reports since then have continued to suggest that Apple could release an iPad upgrade in 2011.

According to analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with Concorde Securities, Apple faced supply constraints and cost limitations that prevented the iPad maker from adding an improved display to the iPad 2. Kuo has suggested that a Retina display is still in the pipeline, and could make its way into the iPad 3 in early 2012.
post #2 of 24
I never put any credibility into such rumors. People just guessing. It ain't real until Steve Jobs says, "and one more thing..."

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #3 of 24
I really hate the "iPad 3 with Retina Display" rumors. They are absolute crap! cramming 4 times 1024x768 into a display of that size would have both an insanely unnecessary resolution, with cost way too much, and would be hard to develop apps for! Along with drastically decreased battery life. A screen at that resolution would be almost 2 times the pixels of a 1080p display!
post #4 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I never put any credibility into such rumors. People just guessing. It ain't real until Steve Jobs says, "and one more thing..."

What makes this one worse is that gruber started it. I think he did just to mess with everyone. It came with a HUGE disclaimer on his part, but look where it went...
post #5 of 24
As soon as the rumors about the iPhone being delayed started coming out I thought it was less likely we'd see an iPad3 this year. I do however think Apple should switch one of the iDevices (either iPhone or iPad) to a September release cycle. The regular iPods which traditionally come out at that time no longer generate as much publicity.
post #6 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tofino View Post

What makes this one worse is that gruber started it. I think he did just to mess with everyone. It came with a HUGE disclaimer on his part, but look where it went...

I dont see how he can be blamed. It wasnt just him posting a disclaimer in case it didnt pan out, but him being completely skeptica about its likelihood. And from what I can see he wasnt the first to promote the rumour. I think Engadget has a lot more readers than Gruber has.

Id point out his disbelieving comments but there are so many that its just easier to post the links to his blog.
http://daringfireball.net/2011/01/co...retina_display

http://daringfireball.net/linked/201...le-tv-engadget I expect to see denser pixel densities on Macs with Lion before we see an iPad sporting a 2048x1536 resolution. Even if you can get an Imagination Tech iGPU to technically support it how would it affect battery life and GPU performance with such a high resolution?
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 #7 of 24
All this talk about pixel doubling (or quadrupling - depending on the way you understand the term) the iPad display to 2048x1536 is crap if you ask me.

The current iPhone display is 960x640. Apple will be much better served by increasing the iPad display to 1920x1280. This will allow developers to develop apps easier to work on apps for both iPad and iPhone. Plus apps built for iPhone will scale better to iPad.

In the future, I expect AppleTV to move to 1080p as well. A 1920x1280 display for iPad will allow iPad to use apps built for AppleTV cleanly, leaving a "status bar" to show notifications, battery status, time, etc on top.

It might be very un-Apple-like, but the extra 200 pixels would also be a very good place to display ads while watching videos - and if Apple ever went down this route, they can offer all the iTunes video content for free, on an ad-supported basis. A more Apple-like approach would be to use this space to display subtitles!

1920x1280 is going to be cheaper, better, and more practical than 2048x1536.
post #8 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Component makers for Apple's iPad claim that the company has released its roadmap for higher-resolution touchscreen tablets, but the project is still at the "initial planning stage" and an upgraded iPad is unlikely to come later this year, according to a new report.

Insiders suggest that Apple could choose AMOLED technology or a high-resolution standard as part of its plan to upgrade the image quality on the iPad, DigiTimes reported on Monday.

"Sources from touch panel makers pointed out that Apple recently released its latest tablet PC plan and is asking the panel makers to provide products that are capable to support higher image quality than the current iPad 2," the report read.

"Apple may even choose AMOLED panel or panel that support Full HD standard to accomplish the plan. However, since the project is still at the initial planning stage, the actual products are unlikely to appear in 2011."

Sources also cautioned that Apple may hold off on moving to AMOLED because rival Samsung mostly controls the technology. "If Apple is adopting AMOLED panel into its device, Apple would be facing a great risk having the key technologies being held by its competitors," the report noted.

Upstream component makers pointed out that, given the production ramp up for the iPad 2, launching an iPad 3 this year would "simply bite off share" from the iPad 2.

Further quashing rumors of an iPad 3 in 2011, sources said that they have yet to receive "any notice for next generation iPad products" and do not believe the iPad 2 is a "transitional product."

Even before the iPad 2 ipad 2 dock had been announced, rumors emerged earlier this year that Apple would release an iPad 3 in 2011.

Those rumors appeared to have been put to rest after Apple CEO Steve Jobs declared 2011 "the year of iPad 2." However, intermittent reports since then have continued to suggest that Apple could release an iPad upgrade in 2011.

According to analyst Ming-Chi Kuo with Concorde Securities, Apple faced supply constraints and cost limitations that prevented the iPad maker from adding an improved display to the iPad 2. Kuo has suggested that a Retina display is still in the pipeline, and could make its way into the iPad 3 in early 2012.

In the future, I expect AppleTV to move to 1080p as well. A 1920x1280 display for iPad will allow iPad to use apps built for AppleTV cleanly, leaving a "status bar" to show notifications, battery status, time, etc on top.
post #9 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

All this talk about pixel doubling (or quadrupling - depending on the way you understand the term) the iPad display to 2048x1536 is crap if you ask me.

The current iPhone display is 960x640. Apple will be much better served by increasing the iPad display to 1920x1280. This will allow developers to develop apps easier to work on apps for both iPad and iPhone. Plus apps built for iPhone will scale better to iPad.

In the future, I expect AppleTV to move to 1080p as well. A 1920x1280 display for iPad will allow iPad to use apps built for AppleTV cleanly, leaving a "status bar" to show notifications, battery status, time, etc on top.

It might be very un-Apple-like, but the extra 200 pixels would also be a very good place to display ads while watching videos - and if Apple ever went down this route, they can offer all the iTunes video content for free, on an ad-supported basis. A more Apple-like approach would be to use this space to display subtitles!

1920x1280 is going to be cheaper, better, and more practical than 2048x1536.

That is less likely than 2048x1536.

Why would you expect Apple switch from a 4:3 aspect ratio to a 3:2 aspect ratio for the iPad?

Apps on the iPad being displayed on a TV arent going to work or feel the same way. You dont touch a TVs display to input data. Have you seen an iPhone app on the iPad. That is a mobile device with display as the primary I/O and those look and feel like crap so why would an iPad app that you have to use a remote control to navigate on display that is many feet in front of you be clean to you? Can you really see Apple doing that over making an AppleTV SDK for the very unique UI it designed for the AppleTV? I certainly cant.

The whole reason there was anything to this Retina Display rumor on the iPad was due to scaling so that 1 pixel would now be represented by 4 pixels in a block so that even if an app wasnt updated to take advantage of the displays new resolution it would still represent the same colors over the same area. So if you are going to a resolution that doesnt double the pixel density and still want to have validity to your hypothesis youll have to go with SXGA+ (1400x1050; 180ppi) or UXGA (1600x1200; 206ppi) as they both preserve the well chosen 4:3 aspect ratio while increasing the pixel density substantially while still being substantially less pixels to push than 2048x1536.
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 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orlando View Post

As soon as the rumors about the iPhone being delayed started coming out I thought it was less likely we'd see an iPad3 this year. I do however think Apple should switch one of the iDevices (either iPhone or iPad) to a September release cycle. The regular iPods which traditionally come out at that time no longer generate as much publicity.

I think that the music event deserves its own spotlight, and I expect A5-equipped iPod touches this fall (although only in 32 and 64 GB sizes, due to high A5 production costs). I do think, however, that Apple should release the iPad 3 at WWDC 2012, and wait until early 2012 before releasing the next iPhone.

Here's why: When releasing a new iPhone, that phone will be produced for two years. Many think that the customer's the only person who makes a long-term commitment with the iPhone. No, Apple also makes a two-year commitment to producing the proper ARM chips, and if the new iPhone is released this September with an A5 chip, they'll have to produce A5's until late 2013, at the earliest.

The A5 chip will always be more expensive to produce than the A4, so alternatives should be considered. In ~January, 2012, the A6 processor will likely be ready, which I assume will be based on Cortex-A15 technology. This chip will probably cost about the same as the A5 to mass-produce, and will be even faster and more efficient than the A5. So why not take advantage of economies of scale on that chip? Unless Canon rebrands the A5 as the Digic V in their digital cameras (which could happen with their partnership), Apple has the opportunity to completely end A5 production in late 2012, when the 2011-series iPod touch is retired. At that point, Apple could be producing only A4's and A6's, further reducing per-unit manufacturing costs.

Additionally, Apple gets another round of iPhone 4-related holiday season sales this year. Ever wonder why Canon releases their Rebel-series cameras early in the year?
post #11 of 24
The ipad is not coming until 2012. Apple is selling ipad2 like hot cakes now. However, I believe the screen res increase is possible and likely. Apple is a pioneer in screen density on the iPhone. The ipad could easily do it in spite of what the naysayers think.

Apple is not going to let its lead in tablets falter any time soon. They have found the formula for success: great products with great software. Tablet hardware is improving quickly like desktop speeds were I'm the late 90s. Soon, our ipad 1s and 2s will need to be replaced just to run the OS due to CPU demands and improvements.
post #12 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

Apple is a pioneer in screen density on the iPhone. The ipad could easily do it in spite of what the naysayers think.

Have you considered all the reasons why it wouldnt be feasible?

For starters, the pixel density isnt the biggest issue yet it seems to be the only issue people think is relevant. Saying, the iPhone 4s pixel density is 326 and doubling the iPads resolution to 2048x1536 would only be 264ppi is far cry from making this notion viable.

Where is the pixel count consideration that the GPU has to deal with? Despite iPhone 4s pixel denisty over the current iPad its still pushing less pixels than the current iPad. The math is simple, you multiple one number by the other: 960x640=614,400, 1024x768=786,432, and 2048x153=3,145,728. Thats over 6x the number of pixels that need to be supported yet its only the pixel density that is being considered. Why is that?

Then there is ability to produce the panels. Were talking an area 8x larger than the iPhones display area. There is a reason that the larger the display gets the larger the pixels are. Apple already had to source other panels because their suppliers couldnt keep up with their need for 1024x768 IPS panels so what reasoning is there that has magically been resolved? Maybe it has, but what evidence is there they can produce enough of these displays?
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 #13 of 24
Being as the iPad2 is selling incredibly well and the competition is only now beginning to introduce products able to compete with the iPad1, why would Apple feel compelled to refresh the iPad line again this calender year.

What has to be remembered is that one of the most important aspects of the iPad that has given Apple such a substantial competitive advantage is price. There had long been a well-earned perception of Apple as a purveyor of good yet very expensive products. The iPad has set a standard in terms of bang for the buck and that isn't going to change any time soon.

The iPad will get faster, lighter, more powerful, and of course the screen resolution will improve. Yet it's not going to be a case of Apple rushing out new products to an extent that will cut into affordability and/or profitability.
post #14 of 24
I'm still kind of puzzled why so many of you are so sceptical about the iPad 3 getting a screen with double the resolution in both directions. The only justification for this scepticism I see is: "it's too expensive", "the GPU would have to push 4x the pixels", "it would use too much power" and "nobody can produce enough of these screens fast enough".

None of these arguments seem to be based on more than just assumptions of what is and isn't possible, and history has proven that sometimes, Apple will pull out a rabbit from the hat, that proves more things are possible than you would have imagined beforehand. Such as a 960x640 iPhone screen, a tablet with 10+ hour battery life, or an ultraportable that's less than an inch thick.

Let's run through the arguments AGAINST doubling the iPad 3 resolution:

Quote:
"It's too expensive"

I think this argument is bollocks, if you look at the price difference between the iPad 1 screens at launch, and replacement parts now, these screens now sell for 3 times less than they did a year ago. Produce stuff like this in the quantities that Apple sells in iPads will make any screen cheap enough over time. Even if a true retina-display is 3x as expensive as the current iPad screen, Apple would still be able to sell iPad 3's without taking a loss, they would just have to cut their profits initially, maybe to the point that they hardly make any money at first. It's exactly what they did with the iPad 1 to gain marketshare, and seeing how well that strategy paid off, don't be surprised if they pull a trick like that again. Then there's of course always the option to introduce and iPad 3 alongside an 'iPad 3 HD', the latter $100 more expensive, but with a higher clocked CPU and GPU and a retina screen.

Quote:
"The GPU would have to be so insanely fast with 4x the pixels, it's impossible"

This is only true if you assume applications (especially games) can only render at the native resolution, which -again- is contrary to what history has told us with the iPhone 4 screen: applications can still choose the baseline resolution instead of the 2x resolution, and all of the development tooling is made to deal with this almost automatically. Developers could simply program graphics intensive applications at half-resolution, and native UIKit applications at full resolution. Apple could even adapt iOS to make the output resolution view-dependent: ie: an application that combines standard UIKit elements with custom-drawn elements could have all UIKit views at full resolution, and the custom-draw views at half resolution. The GPU could scale up half-resolution views at almost no cost and without introducing scaling artefacts (since that's what GPU's do all the time). For simple 2D user interface rendering, even the current iPad 2 hardware would be more than sufficient to push 2048x1536, drawing stuff like the iOS user interface is a piece of cake compared to a game like e.g. Infinity Field, in terms of GPU load.

Quote:
"A 2048x1536 screen would use too much power"

AFAIK, most of the power used by LCD screens goes to the backlight, and adding more pixels doesn't make much of a difference compared to it. Sure enough a retina screen would use more power, but battery technology is also not standing still. If battery technology gets a little better, the iPad 3 screen uses a little more power, and a single charge would get you 9 hours on the iPad 3, instead of 10 on the iPad 2, the better screen would still be more than worthwhile.

Quote:
"No one can produce these screen fast enough"

Why not? Is there any reliable indication that it is somehow impossible to produce screens the same size but 2x the resolution, at the same rate? How come Apple managed to double the iPhone 4 resolution out of nowhere, long before other phones had screens like that? And who else is using 2048x1536 screens? If Apple is the only customer, and they make big upfront payments for long-term screen production contracts, it would be the perfect opportunity for display manufacturers to invest in a complete new production line dedicated exclusively to producing ultra high-res 10" screens.

The arguments IN FAVOR of adding a retina screen to the iPad 3 are very obvious: it would propel the iPad 3 so far in front of competing products, that it would again be out of reach for a whole year. Nobody has a tablet with a screen like that on their roadmap, and nobody would be able to source enough of these screens at a low enough price, soon enough to have a competitive product out before the iPad 4 rumors would start. A retina screen would be a unique selling point for the iPad, it would allow Apple to better market it as an e-reader with a pixel density higher than print, it would allow for much more interesting applications of the HDMI output, and most importantly, it would be yet another huge blow to the competition.

In the boxing world, if you go down 3 times, you're out of the match with a technical KO. We've had the iPad 1, which exceeded everyones expectations, especially on price. Competition went down for a full year for the first time. Then came around the iPad 2, which handily demoted the supposedly superior Tegra 2 chip that everyone was hyping up, by humiliating it on its own game (graphics performance). Competition is currently down and doesn't really seem to be able to pick themselves up for now, there's still nobody selling any competing tablets in any meaningful quantities, let alone making fat profits off of them. Now imagine iPad 3 having a retina display, that would be the perfect TKO. Especially when the competition realizes they will not be able to include screens like that in large quantities fast enough.

Maybe I'm just being too optimistic, but hasn't Apple shown time and time again that they love to pick one signature feature for a product revision (be it screen, size & weight, a new port, a new UI, a new graphics chip) and then go all-out trying to make that one feature stand out so far above any competing product, that the presence of that feature alone will make people forget that the product might be lacking on other features?

I'm not an analyst, not even remotely so, but I would not hesitate to wager a crate of beer that the iPad 3 WILL have a retina display. I'm almost 100% sure of this. I'm also almost 100% sure that it will NOT launch in 2011, for the simple fact that it doesn't make ANY sense whatsoever. It's just a stupid rumor that went on to get a life of its own.
post #15 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by macarena View Post

The current iPhone display is 960x640. Apple will be much better served by increasing the iPad display to 1920x1280. This will allow developers to develop apps easier to work on apps for both iPad and iPhone. Plus apps built for iPhone will scale better to iPad.

i hope this doesn't happen. i expect different versions of an app on my iPad than on my iPhone. taking an app designed for the 9.7" screen and shrinking it down to a 3.5" iPhone display will result in tiny interface elements, and taking an app designed for a 3.5" display and simply scaling it up for a 9.7" display results in childish giant buttons. fragmentation exists and [good] developers adjust their apps to work WELL on every device.
post #16 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

there's of course always the option to introduce and iPad 3 alongside an 'iPad 3 HD', the latter $100 more expensive, but with a higher clocked CPU and GPU and a retina screen.

...or an iPad2HD alongside an iPad2.

i would pay $100 more for the exact same specs other than a doubled resolution - i agree: cut it back to 1024x768 for games, i just want shaper text when i'm reading. great post - arguments with actual thought behind them... imagine that.
post #17 of 24
There will be an iPad 3 in 2011. However, they'll do what they did with the iPhone 3G: add an S to its name.

I give you the iPad 2S.
post #18 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by colinstalter View Post

I really hate the "iPad 3 with Retina Display" rumors. They are absolute crap! cramming 4 times 1024x768 into a display of that size would have both an insanely unnecessary resolution, with cost way too much, and would be hard to develop apps for! Along with drastically decreased battery life. A screen at that resolution would be almost 2 times the pixels of a 1080p display!

I like the idea of a high res ipad even as high as the 4x Retina but I agree that the current overhead is not awesome. I would not want a drop in response or battery. And I think that the general public would agree. Joe Q Consumer would probably say that better glass, better back light etc is more important than a 4x screen improvement. Particularly when there's no video to go with that kind of playback level. Like it or not, media is a major part of the ipad so until there's realistic 1080p downloads it doesn't seem like Apple would go that far and in particular way over it.

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 #19 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

...
I'm not an analyst, not even remotely so...

No, you make more sense than an analyst. Nice post. I hope you are correct.
post #20 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I never put any credibility into such rumors. People just guessing. It ain't real until Steve Jobs says, "and one more thing..."

100% agree.
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
"Don't be a dick!"Wil Wheaton
Reply
post #21 of 24
I always had the feeling that Fall 2011 for iPad 3 was not realistic.
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by colinstalter View Post

I really hate the "iPad 3 with Retina Display" rumors. They are absolute crap! cramming 4 times 1024x768 into a display of that size would have both an insanely unnecessary resolution, with cost way too much, and would be hard to develop apps for! Along with drastically decreased battery life. A screen at that resolution would be almost 2 times the pixels of a 1080p display!

A few points on the worst first post ever.

1) is the retina display on the iphone stupid too? no? well retina on the ipad would NOT be stupid for the same reasons. have you ever notice how jagged text renders? .

2) It's no more unnecessary on the ipad than it was on the iphone. Also for spacial use applications it would be magnificent, especially if there's any real potential of ipad FCP integration which current rumblings have indicated. A 4k display sounds AWESOME!!!!! to anyone working in digital cinema.

3) How could cost really be a factor? It didn't cost to much for the iphone. Sure yields are lower ATM, but once they rise cost will be inline with the current display JUST... LIKE... the iPhone.

4) Apps won't have to be recoded. That's whole point of iOS being resolution independent.

5) Hate is a strong word. You should reserve it for Hitler and taxes.

The only thing I'd say is that we probably won't see a retina ipad till next year, however it is technically feasible with current tech, just not at the current price or at the necessary volume.
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
turtles all the way up and turtles all the way down... infinite context means infinite possibility
Reply
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

3) How could cost really be a factor? It didn't cost to much for the iphone. Sure yields are lower ATM, but once they rise cost will be inline with the current display JUST... LIKE... the iPhone.

The only thing I'd say is that we probably won't see a retina ipad till next year, however it is technically feasible with current tech, just not at the current price or at the necessary volume.

How could cost NOT be a factor? You don't just multiply the cost of an iPhone 4 display by 4 and call it a day. It's a far more expensive display than the current one. As far as yields go, they would probably be pretty awful as it now stands. And the added costs are not just for the display, it's for a GPU that will support it AND a battery that can handle the added drain. If Apple produces such an animal in 2012, it will undoubtedly be a premium model. There's no way they'll make it all work at the $499 price point by April 2012.
post #24 of 24
I recently bought my first iPad (a 6mo iPad 1 from eBay). Before I bought it I didn't really think the screen resolution was that big a deal.

In comparison to my iPhone 4 though, I must admit that I am actually a little disappointed in the current resolution. At an average viewing distance of (i guess) about 20-30cm, I often find the text on webpages a bit blurry unless I really zoom in.

Perhaps it's just because the iPhone 4 has spoilt me.

In any event, the single most important thing they could do from my standpoint would be to increase it. Obviously pretty unlikely this year, but I sure hope the iPad 3 has it.
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
15" uMacbook Pro 2.4Ghz 8GB 128GB SSD/500GB 7200rpm, iMac 27" i5 16GB 1TB, MacBook Air 8GB 256GB, iPhone 5s 64GB, iPhone 4 32GB, iPad 4 64GB, Apple TV2/3, iPod Nano 2nd gen, iPod Touch 4th gen,...
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple component makers downplay rumors of Retina iPad 3 arriving in 2011
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple component makers downplay rumors of Retina iPad 3 arriving in 2011