'Significant' iPad update expected to drive sales of 55 million in 2012 - Page 2

This faster processor, much faster graphics processor, and high-res screen will enable apps like iMovie (and iPhoto!) to really shine on a tablet.

Imagine the software possibilities!

Hardware is just an enabler for great software.

And text in Pages will look like print. The fonts will be gorgeous.

Keynote presentations will be just incredible.

iBooks will look like you're reading a real book, the resolution will be so high.

Regarding spec impressiveness, yes, it's a big update, but regarding user experience I think most people over the age of less than perfect eye sight will have trouble justifying a five hundred dollar price tag for minimal difference in functionality. Don't get me wrong, I've owned the first and the second iPad, and use my current iPad2 every day for browsing and reading, but I'm skipping this iteration.

For me, a "significant" upgrade expands functionality...and yes, that does include making it lighter. If the iPad3 felt like the old Kindle DX (won't happen for years) but had the exact same specs it does now, I'd upgrade in a heartbeat. That's significant. I never hold the iPad in one hand for longer than a few seconds. Second, I want whatever it takes to get sensory density (or whatever you call it) such that I can write handwritten notes on the fly and not have to write three times bigger for the hardware not to make a mess of it. As much as Apple hates a stylus, even after several decades of personal computing, post-it notes and notepads are still a staple of professional life. If I can write on a tablet or a phone and not feel that I have to text the info in or feel limited by the hardware, I'd upgrade simply for that. 3rd, I want a complete Pages or MS Word application...not some cheap version that can't handle my formatting. The iPad is useless to me as a productivity device (to me, personally, given what I do) because I run into formatting issues. When I can open a dropbox folder in MS Word or Pages and seemlessly continue working on what I had been on my desktop, I'll upgrade for that ability alone. Fourth: a keyboard with a profile similar to the magnetic smart cover. Without that, I might as well be using my macbook air.

Those four things would make me upgrade, individually, on their own merits. Until then, all I see are incremental spec bumps...better camera (which I don't need), faster processor..(for games I don't play), better resolution (I don't need but looks pretty), etc.

I'm not whining - I think technology takes time and our hopes and expectations are usually more fantastic than the speed of technology. I agree with you that in relative terms, the processor and screen are a big upgrade, but I think the person you were responding to had in mind things more similar to what I mentioned. Spec bumps don't add significant functionality...for MY use.

Nevertheless...excited to see it...

Apple will likely add each one, but only one at a time. That way, most of their customers will buy a new iPad each time, for a total of 4. Putting all that into one new product would cut total sales by 75%.

Crazy.

I will bet you the next iPad (a5x) will not have 4 cores, it will just be faster. More cores is not always the way to go with battery life considerations.

The Tegra 3 that everybody else is adopting yields better battery life.

Better than what?

Please show us a Tegra 3 tablet with comparable size and performance to the iPad which gets measurably better battery life.

Or, after the iPad 3 comes out, do the same thing.


That's undoubtedly true. I don't think anyone expects Apple (or any other company, for that matter) to release a product which will make EVERYONE happy.

For me, when I got my iPhone 4 with retina display, I had the same problem - my near vision was no longer good enough to see the difference - so I started wearing my reading glasses. I can still use it without them, but with the reading glasses, I get the benefit of all the extra resolution. So it's entirely up to the user.

BeltsBear you would likely lost that bet and here is why.

When taking in account battery life it's really just simple math. The A5 processor is fabricated on a 45nm process. The new processors coming out this year are fabricated on 28 or 32nm which is a considerable shrink.

This means less power and size and higher yields (hopefully) per wafer. What each vendor then does is make a decision. They have a certain range of power consumption their products can handle. Thus they must stay within this Thermal Design Power (TDP) range.

So the options are to increase the clock frequency of a dual core (as the smaller process allows for this) or bolt on another two cores running about the same frequency (which is what most vendors are doing)

But that doesn't answer your question really. Would Apple stick with Dual Core or move to Quad Core. Well that comes down to the the ARM processor itself. The Cortex A9 has 8 pipleline stage which is low in contrast to an Intel Core I5/I7 14 stage pipeline.

The more pipelines the higher you can clock a processor.

So at this point with only 8 pipelines the ARM core isn't likely going to clock high enough to make a significant different in speed as opposed to the benefits of adding another two cores (more execution units, cache, everything)

So in this bet the odds would be that you would lose unless Apple pulls the proverbial rabbit from the hat.

I agree with most others here, and respectfully disagree with you... And in a way I think your argument kind of debunks your own thought. The only thing significant it wont have according to your definition is design. OK, so no "significant" design change.. That is fine by most people I think because the design looks so great already... Now with your other definitions of "significant": "something different and new, something with import or a new design that changes the game sort of speak" Im not really sure if this is still only talking about the design... The design will not be that different. What will be different?? LOTS.. The screen my friend, I think you are underestimating what a feat it is to get these screens at the price point they will. NO other competitor will come close (as usual). Also faster performance, better camera, and Siri... I would say these are pretty "significant" and I think a lot of other people agree... Bottom line is, I think you defined significant as a "game changer"... Do you really think this new IPad is NOT going to be a game changer...?? I personally think it is going to set a new precedent for quite some time to come... We will look back at this IPad and realize this is truly when the game changed... I actually think its kind of crazy that you dont think this is "significant" but we are all entitled to our own opinions... Its fun to discuss those opinions though..!!

For those that don't think this is significant I'd proffer that your expectations have shifted
based on the rumor mill.

I for one didn't think a Retina display could be done affordably in 9.7 and that alone is significant. When I look at my mother's 27" iMac and realize that all those pixels are being crammed into a screen size that is far smaller I'm amazed.

Exactly! That amazing display is enough reason to upgrade. but it doesn't stop there. There will be other improvements I am sure.

Say no more...

+1 on all your statements. Great post!

Better than a duo-core system with equivalent processor capabilities.

Duh.

Then show us one which has better battery life than the iPad 3.

Oh, yeah. You can't. You simply make things up and hope no one notices.

(For that matter, go ahead and show a 10" tablet with Tegra 3 with better battery life than the iPad 2).

You seem to be laboring under the delusion that the CPU is the only factor determining battery life.

All other things being equal, my point is valid. You want an example where no other thing is equal. That makes sense only if one labors under your delusion.

Apple's valuation now exceeds the combined valuations of IBM and Microsoft.

Wu's on first, Whoa's on second.

Agreed. Well, Apple rolls out one update per year for all of its major products so it should be a significant update. Compare this fact to stuff coming out from the likes of Samsung, LG, HTC, Motorola, Sony, etc. every few months. The screen is a big deal. There's just no comparison between the screens of my iPhone 4S and that of the iPad 2. A Retina (or something close to) Display on the iPad will be amazing. After all, the display screen itself is the computer that you're interacting with.

I'll have to sit this one out though... I got the iPad 2 for myself and my wife as well last summer and it's too early to upgrade now. I guess I'll be getting the even number iterations of both the iPhone and iPad models in the future. Every other year is the way to go. Upgrading every year seems a little silly no matter how much one is enamored with all things Apple. But that's just me...

I think the update will disappoint.

The higher resolution is great, but I am not suffering from the current resolution at all. Never once have I said I just need this but at a higher resolution.

Not interested in LTE. I don't have the 3G model right now.

A better camera like the iPhone's would be great but the iPad is too big to be a go-to camera.

Siri looks great on the iPhone but call me skeptical that I need it for the iPad. I don't see myself talking to my iPad.

And if LTE and the higher resolution give me worse battery life all the more reason to pass.

I really need a built in, slide out and flip up thin keyboard. and more responsiveness.

dont tell me, tell the whiners!
I guarantee that in a weeks time the internets will be awash with bad press. I don't write the stuff, I don't agree with the stuff. But I have a pretty good idea as to how this new iPad will be received .

I, for one, won't buy an iPad until Siri can moan and beg.

Significant or not, an iPad3 with the upgrades being talked about here (retina, camera, processor, Siri) is going to sell like hotcakes.

Just remember what people originally thought of the "significance" of the 4S' upgraded specs.

If all this is true the big losser is tegra 3. A5 beats it to a pul and the new iPad 3 will do it even worse plus potentially having LTE support which tegra 3 can't. Also the dual core cortex 15 chios that don't support LTE...

Also Intel is suppose to take mobile by 2014-15 with there GPU performance and finally cracking the battery live issue. By that time IMHO arm will have the market and their wont be any space for intel...

Your dream come true:



http://www.nationmultimedia.com/top40/detail/7176

You seem to know a lot about processors but are ignoring the fact that more cores do not always feel faster. Getting software to use them 100% efficiently can be a challenge even for Apple.

Apple will increase the speed enough to make it feel just right, and will do more with the graphics processor then they do with the main processor. That is why it is being rumored as the A5X. If it had 4 cores it would probably be called the A6.

It will be two cores.

The screen alone is a monumental update.

The processor gain probably won't be realised because of the increased graphics demands but it the update will be nicely rounded out by Siri and better camera optics.

I'd be more likely to consider cosmetic and form-factor changes as insignificant updates. The iPad 2 was a notable exception in this regard because the rounded back of the iPad 1 was completely fugly, unnecessary and impeded function.

I have an uneasy feeling there is some massive shorting of Apple stock going on at the moment with all this insane boosting on very little evidence. It will only take one thing missing from the fanboy wish list (dual core vs quad, 3G rather than LTE) and AAPL will nosedive.

I admit to being intrigued friend. It could go either way but one bloke made an interesting comment. He said something like he hadn't seen mention of any processors that were fabbed at 28nm that were dual core.

I'm further intrigued by the mention of Macroscalar as a Trademark and set of patents for Apple as discussed here http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/20...-processor.ars

Makes me wonder if Apple's confronting the necessity of core scaling by working towards keeping the cores full of data.

March 7th can't come soon enough. Cheers!

Welcome to every keynote ever.

You can't be serious. The entire face of the iPad is a touch screen, and that is getting a very major improvement. Beyond "significant." Going from the iPad/iPad 2 resolution to a retina display is huge. That alone is reason to be excited about the iPad 3, but we're also most likely getting a significantly faster processor and a significantly better camera. Plus Siri? And who knows what else... but that's not significant enough for you?

Wow.

LTE is the piece I think has the least chance of making it intO the next iPad, until a minor spec bump in the fall that adds LTE to the iPhone at the same time. Quad res, better cams, Siri, and a better processor (whatever it ends up being) possibly 32GB base but I may jut be hopeful on the last one.

Apple doesn't do "spec bumps" on iOS devices. It's all or nothing.

You could both be right.
It could be a dual core CPU and quad core GPU.

J.

That will be in the major consumer release. Here's the progression of the PC industry:

1. hobbyist toys without cases, some assembly required
2. nice cases (Apple II)
3. business cred (IBM)
4. mass market cred (cheap clones)
5. commodities (ultra-cheap clones)
6. no profits because high markups shift to cool portable devices

Raspberry Pi looks like doing the first 5 steps by September. If anyone can get a Linux-capable PC for $25-$35 + cheap power supply, mouse, keyboard and screen, what's Microsoft's business case for selling software for hundreds of dollars into this market? These things are about as fast as a Pentium II 300MHz which can run pretty good apps, and that will put a lot of pressure on the free software world to slim down.

True up to a point (you mean pipeline stages, not pipelines). There are diminishing returns from more pipe stages, since you have more logic overhead as you add more stages. Also, the deeper the pipeline, the higher the cost of branch mis-predictions, since you have more instructions at various stages to discard. You can also gain speed by making the caches bigger without more cores or a more aggressive pipeline, at lower cost in energy. What you care about most is not clock speed but throughput and a higher clock speed does not guarantee higher throughput if cache misses aren't reduced and you get more pipeline stalls.

funny, my second iPhone was a 16GB edge model. i think it was a spec bump from my 8gb iphone after it was stolen

Oh, right, they did add a 16, didn't they?

They also dropped the 4, so that makes sense.

As an aside, I love owning the Apple product with the shortest lifespan ever.

Not really. Quad Core isn't a guarantee. LTE is not as expendable as people think here.

Indeed the SoC cache doubled to 1MB with the A5 which certainly helped. Remember the "heady" days of Intel Netburst architecture with often more than 20 pipeline stages (Prescott had 31!!!) don't want to return to those days.

I'm pretty excited about the ARM Cortex A15. 15 stage integer pipeline, up to 25 stage floating point pipeline and up to 4MB L2 cache.