or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple again rumored to grow iPad family with HD model and Pro apps
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple again rumored to grow iPad family with HD model and Pro apps - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnOldAplGuy View Post

come on, if your gonna post an article, an use a graphic, lets not use one that is totally wrong OK?

It is unlikely the iPad, even this alleged iPad pro, would have enough power for final cut. Any apps are likely controllers a la the photoshop apps

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 #42 of 85
XL and HD would be nice.

J.
post #43 of 85
I disagree with anybody who says that the Macbook Air is a step up from the iPad. They are two completely different things.

If I'm looking for a tablet to use, then a Macbook Air would be a definite step down, since it's missing the one thing that makes tablets great, the touch screen. A Macbook Air doesn't even factor into the equation. A Macbook Air is no substitute for an iPad, and an iPad is no substitute for a Macbook Air.
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

Client server is always an option - in that model the tablet becomes a more convenient control mechanism to a more powerful machine. The point of a tablet isn't just that it's a portable device, it's that it has a paradigm busting control mechanism - and that's applicable in lots of ways.

Admittedly I have not used iMovie for iOS but in my experience on the desktop with much greater precision of a mouse and keyboard, I still find it difficult to work as zoomed out as I would like on the video timeline. Of course now we don't even have a timeline but nevertheless when trying to tweak a transition or scrubbing a clip, I need a lot more accuracy than I can achieve with a touch interface. Maybe my fingers are just too fat. Perhaps I could use some of Steve's sand paper to file them down. I just don't see the iPad being the appropriate tool for high precision graphic applications.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

The people who paid full retail for http://www.amazon.com/Wacom-Cintiq-1...0070697&sr=8-8

There is a market for higher end tablets amongst people who currently use high end graphics tablets. The only question is, is it a market that Apple cares about? How many photographers, graphic designers, architects, etc do they think will want this? How much buzz do they think such users will generate?

Make one that's 24" and a few good pro apps and (strong) prosumers might buy them.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by aknabi View Post

Unless you went with Sherman to the future and back in your time machine ...

Mr. Peabody:


Prof. Peabody:


You just have to be a reasonably intelligent person to see how dumb this rumour is though, not an actual professor.
post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

You just have to be a reasonably intelligent person to see how dumb this rumour is though, not an actual professor.

Heck, even P-Body knows this rumor sucks.

post #48 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

For instance, they reported back in January that the iPad 2 would include the same illusive HD display, an SD Card slot and a dual GSM / CDMA chipset

Is this a commonly-used word in the land of the free? I've never seen it before, and assumed it was a misspelling of "elusive" (which also makes sense in this context). The standard adjectival form of "illusion" (at least down under) is of course "illusory", however I note that dictionaries online seem to be fine with either.

Perhaps the best argument in favour of "illusory" rather than "illusive" is that it avoids confusion when spoken with "allusive" and "elusive".

That is all.
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
post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I have to agree with your logic, but it will probably not be sold on the basis of logic to reasonable people, but by emotion to certain susceptible people.

The great thing about the iPad is that there is ne keyboard. It changes your relationship with the screen in mysterious ways. When the screen resolution comes up to standards (set by the iPhone 4) it will seem like you are holding a world in your hands, not a computer screen.

I hate to use the word "magical," but . . . you get the idea.

Even so, the process that occurs when the price of an iPad is roughly the same as the Air is that the two devices are compared. There is a functionality sacrifice that happens with a tablet and if you're talking pro scenarios, that's important.

The point behind the iPad is affordable computing without a sense of compromise. Netbooks were such a compromised product. Bad keyboards, underpowered, poor build quality.

Perhaps in time a premium tablet will make sense. Perhaps. But I don't know why Apple would take such a risk at this time. All is right with their world and they are challenged to meet demand for the current iPad. A $900 tablet would be a niche product and not likely to move in much volume. Which, of course, causes a problem in that if it had a unique screen, how expensive would it be to produce said screen for a much smaller market. With millions of iPads moved every month, economies of scale kick in. That advantage disappears if instead you have thousands of HD iPads purchased. If anything, my estimate of a $200 premium might well be exceedingly low. This could mean that the iPad HD would start at around $1,000, or worse, not $900.

At that point, all the magic in the world isn't going to erase a sense that there is no value in the iPad HD proposition.

Far more likely, Apple will up the ante with the iPad 3 early next year, taking advantage of economies of scale to deliver a class-leading product for an attractive price. There is a chance that Apple could continue to sell the iPad 2 at a reduced price, a practice that the company has engaged in with other products. Yet the current iPad pricing is likely to continue with whatever happens to be the latest and greatest version of the iPad. That Apple would go the other way, namely tacking on a more expensive version of the existing device. seems highly unlikely.
post #50 of 85
Maybe the iPad HD will run FCP/Jr.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Maybe not, but I'd like to see a version of FCPX for the iPad that would allow me to use all the features of FCPX in preview mode, and when I'm back at my desktop I can render the full-res.

Using the iPad for quick edits and stuff on a project instead of working from memory is a big plus. Rendering the hires can always wait.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gustav View Post

Professional editors were using Macs since before the PowerPC processor - e.g. 40MHz 68040 Mac Quadras. The iPad is the equivalent of a mid-range PowerMac G4 - so yes, it could be done. I wouldn't try previewing transitions on HD video in realtime, but the editing could easily be accommodated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by spliff monkey View Post

Not absolutely. If we could make some exchanges (producer or Director to editor for example) using proxies (it was noted by someone on this forum that iOS already supports prorez i think) then it could be a very useful tool. There is "online" collaborative software available that don't offer a whole hell of allot in terms of function, but they are useful when working remotely. Perhaps this will tie into the cloud as well.

Other than that iMovie is perfectly capable on the iPad so no question an iPad could do it. It would be reserved for simple tasks, but it could useful.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

iPad might have enough storage for editing a 15 sec HDTV ad as long as you didn't have too many takes. Otherwise where are your clips? In the cloud I suppose. Yeah that's pro all the way. It is probably some interface app to complement FCP X.

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm not an editor, so had no idea how useful this could be.
post #52 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Admittedly I have not used iMovie for iOS but in my experience on the desktop with much greater precision of a mouse and keyboard, I still find it difficult to work as zoomed out as I would like on the video timeline. Of course now we don't even have a timeline but nevertheless when trying to tweak a transition or scrubbing a clip, I need a lot more accuracy than I can achieve with a touch interface. Maybe my fingers are just too fat. Perhaps I could use some of Steve's sand paper to file them down. I just don't see the iPad being the appropriate tool for high precision graphic applications.

Unless it is a lot bigger ...
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #53 of 85
Look, there are, what, 20+ tablets out now ALL aiming for similar capabilities and price points. Yeah, the iPad is much better, but it does not address a different market from all the rest. And all the competitors are working like fiends to create second-gen tablets that might actually work and will likely even sell in quantity. Eventually this has to hurt Apple, either in price or volume or both.

But NOBODY is producing a high-end tablet. And it doesnt appear that anybody is thinking about one - all their efforts are going into making a basic tablet that works. Sounds like an opportunity to me....

Why would Apple NOT want to be the company that takes tablet technology and capabilities to another level? Seems like a no-brainer to me. There is nothing about the form factor, interface or technology that should limit a tablet to being a low-end, non-professional tool.

Apple could sell a few millions of these into the Enterprise in starting in 2011, and pioneer technologies that will trickle down to the iPad3, etc. Technologies (like retina displays) that may not be available in quantities of 50M a year, at least in 2011-2012. The halo effect of a Pro-level tablet would be huge, again. Meanwhile Apple can keep hammering the tablet commodifiers with the best tablet at the $500 price point, and also sit alone at the top (most profitable) part of the market.

"A Tablet is NOT a Toy - Introducing the iPad Pro"

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Yeah, the iPad is much better, but it does not address a different market from all the rest.

It addresses the same problem, but actually solves it.

Quote:
But NOBODY is producing a high-end tablet.

Your definition being?

Quote:
Sounds like an opportunity to me....

So make one.

Quote:
Why would Apple NOT want to be the company that takes tablet technology and capabilities to another level?

Probably because they already have.

Quote:
Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Seems like you don't remember what "tablets" were like before the iPad.

Quote:
There is nothing about the form factor, interface or technology that should limit a tablet to being a low-end, non-professional tool.

Exactly. Which is why professionals all over the world in every field are buying the iPad for their professional work. Because it already does that.

Quote:
A Tablet is NOT a Toy - Introducing the iPad Pro"

Immediately implying the existing iPad is a "toy". Since it isn't, this is nonsense. Not abject, just nonsense.
post #55 of 85
@Solipsism

So you don't think there would be demand or interest in a parallel "Pro" line? Unlike almost every other Apple "productivity" product since the Macintosh (Mac II)?

By Pro I don't mean to disparage to iPad, just to suggest there is a LOT of room for more capabilities. Why not break out of the $500 price straightjacket with some extra Magic?

Of course Jobs never wanted a pro version of the compact Mac, and perhaps that bias remains, 20+ years later. Apple is certainly becoming much more consumer-focused. Recent events (FCP X) support that scenario.

But the niche is empty....if Apple doesn't claim it someone else will. Blackberry already tried and failed catastrophically. Someone will figure it out (Microsoft?)

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

...capabilities.

Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?
post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?

I would like to see a larger device with more granular touch resolution --that, with an optional pressure-sensitive stylus could act as a display/control surface in lieu of a dedicated Wacom Tablet.

With enough CPU/GPU, RAM and SDD to function as a standalone device as well as a graphics tablet to s Mac or PC.
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #58 of 85
If this is true, hopefully an "iPad HD" comes in only a few flavors, versus an additional 18-model lineup.

I won't comment on iOS fragmentation, but things do seem to be getting a bit crowded.
post #59 of 85
I can image that the only way to have a second kind of iPad is to have another OS. So if Apple can create a version of Lion on the A5/A6 chip - this could work. Also the patent of a stylus makes sense. But I dont know how this new device could work between the classic iPad and the Macbook Air!?
only my crazy idea...
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Buy an iPad, this $50 keyboard, and only use Safari.

Done.

What you'd get is a laptop that falls apart into 2 pieces....needs the keyboard to be turned on and off separately, charged separately, and deal with the bluetooth connection.....with a hobbled web browser (iOS Safari is lame compared to real browsers on a Mac/PC).

And the cobbled-together thing would cost $120 more than a Chromebook. The Chromebook even comes with a matte screen -- something that many of us wish Apple hadn't abandoned. Can't even get that on an Air or 13" MBP.


I'm just sayin'......there's room in the market for an iOS-style laptop with a real keyboard and web browser. That's what I'm using right now -- on this site on my 2008 MBP running Firefox. 90+% of what I do is exactly what the Chromebook does. An Apple equivalent would be awesome.
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post

I don't think this rumor is impossible.

I think that it is possible you don't think that this is impossible. It is possible that I think I agree. While I think I agree it is possible, I think it would be possibly a very impressive engineering feat to manufacture such a relatively large LCD screen at the resolution 2048 by 1536 - ~ same # of pixels as the Cinema display but at more than twice the PPI. Possibly, the feat would be more than very impressive because the manufacturing yield would be much lower than that of the iPhone. Let's not even consider the video RAM (shared with main RAM in iOS devices), the graphics power needed, the battery ...

After considering the possibility of this, I think it is possible that I no longer think this is possible. But if I am wrong - this would not be a very impressive engineering feat; it would be stunning.
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

It is probably some interface app to complement FCP X.

FCP X doesn't need an interface app, it needs to be a useful editing package. And FCP X on iPad is SOOO Pro! Get some video from some Bluetooth DSLR, cut it, then do what? "Share" it? On the iCloud? Don't expect Hollywood post cheques for that.

But a great gimmick for DoPs and directors to keep each other amused during a big shoot.
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bloggerblog View Post

Maybe not, but I'd like to see a version of FCPX for the iPad that would allow me to use all the features of FCPX in preview mode, and when I'm back at my desktop I can render the full-res.

Using the iPad for quick edits and stuff on a project instead of working from memory is a big plus. Rendering the hires can always wait.

While I believe what you say is true, I have to wonder how you get the previews to work on? I don't edit video, so I honestly don't know.

For my photography, every RAW file has a JPEG embedded. So an iPad version of Aperture is a no brainer, just use the embedded JPEG for the preview image. Like with your video editing, Aperture can work in Preview mode. You can't make edits which would require decoding the RAW file, but you can do all the sorting, organizing, tagging, etc. That would require very little processing power. And even if you needed to decode the RAW file, that's easily within the capabilities of the iPad 2. For video, if you are working in the field, how would you get the files on the iPad and in a format that would work for your preview-mode work?

I assume working on video in preview mode would require more power than for working with photo previews? Also, I suspect you are much more dependent on precision selection working with your video, to select clips at the frame-level, etc. While we photographers love to look at our individual pixels, we don't often try to select individual pixels. Many adjustments are made to the entire photo, and even brush on adjustments cover regions of the photo.

Finally, what would be the market for a pro video app? The vast majority of users would have their needs served by iMovie on iPad. How many would be willing to pay a higher price to get more than iMovie offers? Whereas the current Pictures app is weak. Pathetic, really. And Aperture is an application which appeals to advanced amateurs in addition to pros, a much bigger market. So while I know you weren't comparing pro video vs pro photos possibilities, I have to believe that a pro photos (ie, Aperture) app is a far more likely possibility than a pro video app.
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by wjjw73 View Post

I can image that the only way to have a second kind of iPad is to have another OS.

I argued this with the original iPad, and was dismissed as an idiot.

So good luck, maybe you can do better here.
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

I think that it is possible you don't think that this is impossible. It is possible that I think I agree. While I think I agree it is possible, I think it would be possibly a very impressive engineering feat to manufacture such a relatively large LCD screen at the resolution 2048 by 1536 - ~ same # of pixels as the Cinema display but at more than twice the PPI. Possibly, the feat would be more than very impressive because the manufacturing yield would be much lower than that of the iPhone. Let's not even consider the video RAM (shared with main RAM in iOS devices), the graphics power needed, the battery ...

After considering the possibility of this, I think it is possible that I no longer think this is possible. But if I am wrong - this would not be a very impressive engineering feat; it would be stunning.

Beautiful reply - my words did not deserve such attention.

However, I would merely point you to the recent articles on Apple's use of cash to enable them to develop products as if "from the future" by paying for the development of factories capable of creating these products. I believe the demand would be great enough--even if we see a $199 markup for the "HD" models.
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
GIGO. The truth in all of life.
Reply
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by fearless View Post

But a great gimmick for DoPs and directors to keep each other amused during a big shoot.

This could be more like it.

Also, Apple has to do this before Samsung's high-res tablet comes out, or at least near the same time.

http://www.technobolt.com/2011/05/13...etina-display/

(via znro monk, a commenter at thisismynext's story, which is the source for this AI story.)
post #67 of 85
Quad resolution on the same A5 SoC is very unlikely.
The iPad2 has the best of its class GPU performance. An "iPad2 Pro" would only have mediocre GPU performance. And I don't think we will see the next big push in GPU performance before the transition to 28nm.

PS: The resistance of AppleInsider stuff to use proper math is really astonishing
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Such as? What would make the iPad scream "PRO" to you, more than the fact that it's already being used by pros for professional work?

Well if I could figure that out I would have a job at Apple!


/Start foot in mouth

But let me try: re a single vertical market where Apple could make me very happy. I know this is just for me and my peers, and way out there (at least 2014-like), but I suspect others would like a device similar capabilities:

I just got back from a 10 day photo trip to Utah. I don't have an iPad yet. Thought about bringing my Macbook Pro to download/review/edit photos, but I was reluctant to risk leaving my primary computer in the trunk at trailheads, and it is too heavy to drag along climbing up slickrock, on multi-day backpacks, with limited battery life, etc. (also pretty useless during the actual shooting!) So all my shots stayed on memory cards and a portable card-reading disc drive, unreviewed, unedited, basically unseen, until I finally got home and could actually LOOK at them and start the real work. And then experience remorse for the shots I got wrong and didn't know it.

The iPad is a photographer's friend, and I hear it is great to take along on shoots, but the memory can max out pretty quick - I am not working in a studio where I can off-load files, and I am taking 18MP shots at up to 30 MB each in RAW format, x three or five exposures for each image (for HDR post-processing), and sometimes up to hundreds of images per day (see "Bryce Canyon"). So I might need 10-20+ GB for a single day of shooting, and my trip was 10 days. Plus if you are doing any editing en-route, you need more memory for multiple versions of image edits, scratch files and processing space for image editing software, etc. Even the 64GB iPad would likely be inadequate for that.

I would like to see an iPad Pro with significantly more memory (like Air's 265MB), more graphics processing capability, possibly much more ram for working with those monster image files (is it ram you need or is the flash memory fast enough?), retina display, seamless automatic upload ("it just works") from you DSLR camera - wifi is already coming to high-end cameras - , possibly some degree of ruggedization (water resistance?) for frequent use outdoors, at least 10 hours of battery life, ideally a screen that can be read in bright sunlight so I don't have to buy a 19th C photographer's hood, and superb editing software with pro capabilities including a serious HDR module.

I fantasize about Apple releasing a fully-featured image editing app (NOT an "Express" version or "Eazel" fingerpainting software for the iPad - what is Adobe thinking, that the iPad is a toy????). The software should have capabilities comparable to Photoshop circa 2006 or better, optimized for the iPad. Uh-oh, watch out Adobe! Of course Apple wouldn't ever be motivated to create something that leapfrogs an Adobe product, right?

That spec would make me scream Pro, and immediately buy one for my next photo trip. Of course I have no idea if any of that is technically feasible

And I expect my dream machine would cost $1500-2000, but so what? All this talk of needing to meet a price point that is less than the Air is silly - the iPad is a different machine that serves very different needs, and if the form factor does things no other device can do (which it does) then the comparable price points are irrelevant.

Those capabilities I described might be useful in other pro and semi-pro markets, as none of it is very specific to photography except the software, but I am not the person to judge. Except in architecture (my profession) and engineering, where one of these (esp ruggedized and with a better camera) would be great for site visits.

Thus I think there IS room for more capabilities in the iPad.

end foot in mouth/

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #69 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Smiles77 View Post

Beautiful reply - my words did not deserve such attention.

However, I would merely point you to the recent articles on Apple's use of cash to enable them to develop products as if "from the future" by paying for the development of factories capable of creating these products. I believe the demand would be great enough--even if we see a $199 markup for the "HD" models.

Apple has had a really, really decent cache of cash for a while. What "from the future" technology have they developed or deployed? They are a master integrator, but rarely (ever?) an original innovator at the fundamental level, in either software or hardware. In fact, they have never been found to even engage research at that level ... ever. To develop a display of that resolution at that size is simply outside their expertise. In fact, the best medical displays (one industry that requires such resolution on a good size display) do not have this kind of PPI, not close.

For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.

We should also remember that the "sources" of this rumor are the same as 7 months ago - Josh Topolsky and friends. Back then, they were at Engadget. Now they are at "This is My Next (rumor)". Back then, they were dead wrong. And, back then, they moderated their claims by saying the increase in resolution may not be double (i.e. 1.5 instead). How long before they start hedging this time?
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I'm guessing it's iMovie renamed Final Cut Pro X for iPad.

Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

It's Final Cut Studio 7 for the iPad - PSYCH!

LOL. A "pro" app for the iPad. Maybe they should tighten up that "pro" app for the Mac. Don't get me wrong, the iPad is the future and there are some great apps, it's just that anyone claiming to make a "pro" app for it is... well, ambitious at this stage.
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Heck, even P-Body knows this rumor sucks.

Hah! It took me almost a minute to get the P-Body pun... Peabody... P-Body...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JONOROM View Post

Thus I think there IS room for more capabilities in the iPad...

That was a decent post. Yes, eventually the iPad will have these capabilities to truly replace a laptop in many areas. More demanding fields like photo and video will take more time, but it will get there. There will of course be some verticals where the iPad will never be useful, but those will be very rare after five years of iPad evolution.
post #72 of 85
(Oops)
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.

Have you forgotten the retina display on the iPhone 4? How did that happen, given your narrative? Why would it not happen for the iPad, given that it has already happened once before?

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply

Macintosh 512Ke.......

Reply
post #74 of 85
Usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb
post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Fix View Post

Usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb usb

The iPad already has USB. If you'd take a second from your spamming, you'd see that.

As to the iPad getting a standard USB-A, USB-B, Mini USB-A, Mini USB-B, or Micro USB port, it will NEVER HAPPEN.
post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

For the iPad to adopt double the current screen resolution, it will not come from Apple's own development effort. They'd simply take advantage of the fruits of someone else's R&D labors (as they have done historically). However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first.

You forgot that businesses like to make a profit. They don't care about competing with Apple if they can make a profit selling to Apple and competing. Because they end up richer that way.
post #77 of 85
More software in silos. Apple's strength, and Apple's weakness.

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply

Many of the most important software concepts were invented in the 70s and forgotten in the 80s.

Reply
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

Apple has had a really, really decent cache of cash for a while. What "from the future" technology have they developed or deployed?

How's about all of them?

Quote:
However, most of the companies that specialize in displays are amongst their competitors, and less likely to give this technology to Apple first. Furthermore, while LG has made noise earlier this year about advanced IPS displays, they have not divulged resolution specifications.

Read the article.
post #79 of 85
Only in someone's imaginarium will there be another iPad this year.

So, for all the people who *want* this to be true. What will be the "knock your socks off" feature of iPad 3 in 2012?

A Retina Display would surely be the biggest, most easily marketable feature of a new iPad. Why waste it mid cycle with a iPad 2++??

Also, who would pay $1000+ for an iPad 2++?? So Apple sells 500,000 of them in a year. Whoop dee doo! They sell 2,000,000 "normal" iPads a month!
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Unicron View Post

A Retina Display would surely be the biggest, most easily marketable feature of a new iPad. Why waste it mid cycle with a iPad 2++??

Because year long product cycles don't necessarily make sense in highly dynamic markets, especially in the early stages when it really pays to deny new participants share. Oh and because Samsung are already demonstrating prototypes with Retina level displays and saying that they'll deliver retail product this year.

http://www.technobolt.com/2011/05/13...etina-display/

Quote:
Also, who would pay $1000+ for an iPad 2++?? So Apple sells 500,000 of them in a year. Whoop dee doo! They sell 2,000,000 "normal" iPads a month!

You're making a big assumption regarding the price and the sales. It's quite plausible that an HD wifi model would be around the same price as the current Verizon model, and they were selling pretty darned well.

Absolutely denying the possibility of something when you lack hard evidence is as unreasonable as absolutely asserting the existence of something when you lack hard evidence.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple again rumored to grow iPad family with HD model and Pro apps
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple again rumored to grow iPad family with HD model and Pro apps