Apple's third-gen iPad rumored with more RAM, A5X dual-core CPU and LTE - Page 4

I'm, unsuccessfully, trying to convince you to act rationally and stop saying you're justified in demanding a company make the exact product you want simply because you want it without any regard for how they make money, what their costs are, or their supply and demand.

They may very well offer a 128GB iPad. That would be great and I'd likely buy that model with the cellular card even if cost more than the current 64GB WiFi+3G model, but I'm hoping, your demanding. You can't see a difference because, well, I'm rational and you are you.


PS: It's great how you came to that $304 window for doubling the flash storage. I'm not even going to ask you are arrived at those upper and lower values... I'm sure it's all above board¡

Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?

Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.

Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.

However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.

Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computersmost of the apps never get opened.

As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.

When large storage is deemed necessary it's available: in those 32 and 64 GB versions. For users solely interested in something they'll use in a high speed WiFi environment and thus with Cloud access readily available the 16 might be all they ever need. So that's all they have to buy...

OK, guys... I give up!

You've convinced me...

The optimal size SSD for an entry iPad 3 is... 144 MB... er, ah... 24 GB.

Where are those BubbleMemories or those MagnetoRestrictive delay lines when we need them?

First of all don't condescend me with [sic] for autocorrect not working like it should on "the" and start being a bit more respectful to other posters here because you might be intelligent and have a solid knowledge when it comes to apple, but you are also incapable of conducting a discussion where you don't put whatever rationalization you have on apple across with scarce regard for what others are saying, making it immensely hard to impossible for people to converse with you.

Again in order to put your point across you have conveniently omitted to respond to two very lengthy posts of mine which I explained iPad usage in very much detail. You want to keep talking to your self, be my guest. I realise once again how pointless it is -to me at least- to have a conversion with you.

Don't respond if you don't want to but know that if you make irrational, egocentric claims about what Apple should do because you want it I will call you out just as I would hope others would call me out for the same thing. In fact.... I demand it. \

They have two chips in the iPad so they could do uneven building if there was a slight issue with cost or availability. Meaning they could go with a 64GB chip and 32GB for 96GB, assuming they can even use a 64GB modules. I know they use 1x16GB module as they tend to use the lower capacity models for the teardowns so perhaps to get the performance and reliability they can feasibly only go 2x32GB at this point. If that's the case I hope they'd at least consider 3 chips so they could increase capacity but it's not looking good at this point.

edit: Single 64GB chip in iPhone at about 20MBps so performance and reliability don't seem to be the big factors.

More RAM may take more power but not increasing it stunts platform growth.

That is easy! The real trick is to get an app to leverage those cores regularly.

The iPad isn't a phone, it is a computer, the Russians have said so!!! That being said you might be surprised at how well many apps could already use the extra cores. Apple has been on the threading warpath for sometime now.

Of course you are rational, because whatever the user demands, even if it's such a paltry demand as to add a few more gbs to their base model which they haven't done in two going to three years, so it can be barely functional based on the uses they promote for it and content, your response is I don't have a regard for their costs, supply and demand, yada, yada yada, because you have conclusively proven that all these "fundamental commerce laws" are preventing apple, and you ve also conclusivley proven that it is not a matter of higher margins, or them wanting to artificially cripple the low end device so the user will have to buy again in a year. It's very ironic the level of irrationality you are demnonstrating, simply because of your pathological compulsion to rationalise any decision apple makes in favour of apple.

Safari is a prime example. In many cases more RAM would save power by reducing data transfers and save users money by reducing bandwidth usage.


Actually I think you are a little off there many apps do put those cores to good use.

This argument reminds me of the ones I had back during my M.E. undergrad days when a few classmates would bring Thermo, Machine Design, DiffEq, Fluids, all together with them to the Student Union Building as if they were going to even go through it all. Then they'd complain about the weight of the textbooks.

I'd tell them to stop bringing books to lecture hall and if they were going to remain on campus to study often to rent a locker in the Student Gaming area and put all the textbooks in there. The smart ones figured that out quick. Cheap and allowed for a light backpack or sidepack.

Store the bulk of your textbooks on your Mac and in the Cloud.

Damn this cloud, I would be still enjoying snow leopard hadn't I wished to be on it...

How about:

iPuddle 3

iPudding 3

iPotato 3

iPlop 3

...

Quick, Boy Wonder... To the Bat-Iterator!

Gods, it gets really old sometimes (this whole having to inform the uninformed).

Yes, I saw what you were commenting on, but the point still stands. I'm looking at some of the popular games on the App Store right now:

Grand Theft Auto 3: 460 MB
Infinity Blade II: 940 MB
Rage 3D: 1.2 GB

Hell, that's nearly 3GB for just three games.

The average SD movie on iTunes is 1 to 2 GB. Throw in your other apps, music, pictures, etc and 16GB starts to get confining. Throw in the double resolution and higher resolution textures for games, and watch those file sizes start increasing.

And I said TextBooks, not regular iBooks. Here are the file sizes of the 10 featured TextBooks on the main page:

970 MB
2.35 GB
1.11 GB
2.79 GB
1.5 GB
929 MB
934 MB
1.26 GB
2.31 GB
1.22 GB

All I'm saying is that bumping up the base storage for the THIRD generation iPad to 32GB would give most people more breathing room and doesn't seem like too much to ask. I mean, give me a break. The highest capacity iPhone is 64GB and it's not nearly as capable as the iPad. To cripple the iPad to the same size limitation as the "inferior" iPhone with this generation seems unthinkable.

Hell, most of you people are acting like we're trying to stab your mother in the back by even suggesting the idea.

That does not mean that I think we will get it this go around. Why? Pretty simple I have to imagine that the new retina screen is very expensive relative to the current LCD and will remain so for the year. Hopefully by the time 2013 rolls around costs will be down to allow for more flash at the established price points. Right now RAM and the processor improvements to drive the screen are far more important.

As to your Safari comment...

When Kindle released the Fire they made a big to-do about their efficient browser that anticipated page requests, pre-fetched them, cached them on their servers, then downloaded multiple pages with a single request/response...

They quickly backed off this implementation when the users complained about the slowness...

I always thought that it sounded like a good idea, but that the poor performance was likely due to the low usage of the web by the Kindle Fires -- more Fires hitting web pages == more effective prediction and caching.

Back in the day when I did web development, most people used 64 Kb modems. Each page request, and each hidden request for and image, script, link, etc. involved a separate request/response turn around. Every turn around could take 1-2 seconds...

Therefore, it was very important to minimize these hidden requests in every web page -- a request for a single page could easily result is 20-30 request/response turnarounds.

I haven't done any web design for years, so I don't know if this problem (multiple request/response turn arounds per page) still exists... though, observing the way some pages load [slowly] I think the problem is still there -- but masked by much higher bandwidth.

If the latter is true, then there would be great benefit to the server pre-fetching pages (including all their hidden requests), caching them -- then downloading it in one one request/response turnaround...

With an efficient, active server caching anticipated page requests, the server could download and buffer anticipated pages along with the original page request...

Overall, if you have available RAM on the device -- you could access more data, faster while using significantly less bandwidth.

A by-product is that you could optionally eliminate all ads and tracking.

If people want to rationalise, they can turn black to white, day to night...

3 games, 2 textbooks or other rich media books, 4-5 music albums, 3-4 audiobooks, 1 movie (or two video podcast episodes), 10-20 apps, one magazine subscription and the 16gb iPad is almost full because as you rightly say 16gb is phone storage from 3 years ago not a post computer device's storage in 2012. It's as simple as that, and we are here debating the bleeding obvious alas...

Exactly. It's like people are somehow OFFENDED that we even make the suggestion that in this day and age, more storage is probably going to be needed especially with a double rez screen and the apps that will come along with it.

And this age of 3GB limitations (AT&T) and capped data, this whole idea of streaming everything from iCloud isn't going to go very far either. And the iPad is supposed to be a post PC device that replaces the need for low-end notebooks or netbooks, yet I just keep hearing people talk about transferring data back and forth to their PCs or Macs in order to "conserve space".

That's the OLD way of thinking.

I swear, most people here don't act like consumers, they act like THEY are the ones managing Apple's books and defend every decision they make.

Depending on the quality of the page development. HTTP requests can still be a problem.

"One article at TheNextWeb weighed in at over 6 MB and required 342 HTTP requests.
Typical articles at The Verge take about 110 HTTP requests, and weigh about 500 KB."

Regarding TheNextWeb’s Shit-Ass Website

Stunts the platform in comparison to what exactly?

I'm not saying adding more RAM is impossible. I'm just saying their are trade offs for everything.


Does Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram need four cores?

YeeSus Marta...

We have OS bloat, application bloat, ad bloat, bandwidth bloat and web content bloat...

And we continue to throw cubic inches at the problems...

Maybe GreenPeace should attack bloated websites for excessive http emissions...

My overarching rule when I developed sites -- the first page had to load in 7-13 seconds (@ 64Kb) or the visitor would lose interest and just move on...

Have we learned nothing?

iPad is also a nice device for non-computer-literate seniors too. They have maybe one Perry Como album and a tic-tac-toe game. They might read a book or two but will mostly use it to send email, view a half a dozen pictures of the grand kids and maybe download a few recipes. A 16 GB iPad is probably twice what they actually need. Fortunately Apple realized there is more than just one usage scenario so they were clever enough to make a few different types of iPads. What will they think of next? How about two different colors to choose from? Imagine that?

And that's what the hypothetical $399 16GB iPad 2 would be for. Just like the "Free" on contact iPhone 3GS and the $99 iPhone 4.

Let the rest of us play with the top of the line stuff, and let the cheapskates get the previous gen with gimped storage capacities

You people are nots if you think you're "justified" to "demand" that Apple add whatever capacity you deem necessary for your usage. Let's give no consideration to what a for-profit company might want and why they might not bend to our every whim.

Michael Gartenberg: "The iPad and other devices are not here to displace the PC (by which I mean all personal computers, whether theyre Macs or PCs running Windows). In fact, post PC means after PC, a new generation of products that build on the PC. What it doesnt mean is sans PC, that is, without PC. The personal computer will no doubt be with us for a very long time but that doesnt mean were not in the post-PC world."

I guess I don't follow your logic. Are you arguing against a 16 GB model or for a 128 GB model? Or you are the cheapskate and want a 32GB for the price of a current 16GB?

So those that don't need the top of the line model are cheapskates? Are you really under the impression that everyone will easily use more than 14.5GB for storage? Besides myself a couple other people that are in the tech field everyone else I know, young and old, use very little of their iPad storage. Why exactly is that a problem for you and myapplelove?

Man, I feel like Seinfeld in bizarro world. AI is the ONLY forum that I visit out of all the products I enjoy (automotive forums, gaming forums, hobby forums, photography forums, etc) where the consumers/readers are more concerned about the company in question maintaining profit margins than actually you know... talking about features we'd like to see.

Sheesh, I don't often feel like I can be an enthusiast anymore reading these forums... I have to deal with people that think they are wannabe analysts/financial experts protecting Apple from us "whackos" that dare ask for more features from future products.

Most people I know are doing very well with 16GB models, but there are few I know that would like to have 128GB. The price doesn't matter to me. I don't see 16GB going away as it's a good size, just as 8GB seems to be holding strong for most smartphones, but could they add a 4th capacity? They certainly have 4 capacity in the iPhone with an 8GB 3GS/4 and a 16, 32, and 64GB 4S, but I can't see them going with 4 capacities of the same model so unless they can double the capacity tomorrow 16, 32, and 64GB for the iPad HD seems most likely.

If they offered a 128GB model I'd buy that, even at a $100 more. If they offered a $256GB model (assuming everything else on the NAND stayed the same) I'd pay $300 more than that model. I certainly don't feel entitled to these capacities and prices because I want them.

Then explain to use why you think you are justified in demanding what and when a company releases a product if you don't think it's fucked up to think you have that entitlement as a consumer.

People don't get upset at [not Apple] when they don't release such and such feature that was rumored. People don't get all whiny and angry and feeling idiotically entitled, demanding that [not Apple] immediately include said features in an update. How somehow they're OWED said feature and why [not Apple] is worthless for not including it.

I've been around the block a few times. Frigging MacRumors. This is how they behave. You have to temper this behavior, otherwise it just bursts out and you never get a moment's peace on the forums.

ME SO ANGRY ME WANT TO MEDITATE.

Text books. Obviously still in school-why the need for AT&T? Seems like WiFi and a free iCloud account would suffice. And at the price of tuition, 3 games is overkill.

I'm arguing for both.

I'm arguing for a 128GB iPad 3
I'm arguing against a 16GB iPad 3
I'm arguing for a $399 16GB iPad 2

Retailers have already dropped the price of the 16GB iPad 3 down to $430 to $450 ahead of the iPad 3 launch. So why not keep the iPad 2 around at $399 and let the iPad 3 pickup from $499 at 32GB.

For those that don't need a lot of space, they can pick up the iPad 2 and get a deal. Those that want to spend a $100 more can step into the first rung of iPad 3 land.

Sounds pretty reasonable...

Whatever the outcome, I'm buying whatever $600 will get me tomorrow.

I think it will be apple's downfall if they do not adjust to their post Jobs mega corporation status. Jobs might have been a control freak and imposed ways people should do computing as opposed to pandering to their needs, but he also had a vision for computing and for the aesthetic and that was apple's saving grace. If the bookkeepers at apple right now think they can simply impose and unfairly so, be it in os x by say pimping icloud via lion and not supporting it in their just previous os, or in iOS devices by crippling entry level models of the ipad, when they are not exactly bringing innovation to the table anymore only incremental updates so far there are plenty of other fish in the sea to take their action. They can only alienate their customers this way.

If I were managing apple now I would say, let us stick an sd card too in the iPad, and let's say cap it at 32gb. It might seem a very unapple thing to do, but that might be Presicely why it should be done, because apple is not what it used to be. Give something to the customer that the competitor cannot match, don't force them to buy the next iPad simply because they couldn't afford more than the 16gb model now, you are being usatory thus and they might resent you when they ll keep exchanging files with their mac or pc cause at 16gb they cant store shit, because Samsung and google, and amazon are just around the corner and they have both the clout and the technology to match apple on many fronts.

Jobs was clever enough to hit them where it hurt most with the iPad by bringing the price aggressively down with the iPad. Do they have a strategistic there with enough insight to say Samsung is going to have retina in 3 months at most, they are giants in flash, and they can also match us in CPU and have a very comparably good mobile os in android. How long are we going to keep suing the, away? So where do we hurt them? Applle doesn't offer extensible storage and they are a closed garden, ok then hit them with an SD card option and preempt them by taking their advantage away. One of the few things Samsung can offer as an extra in the future.

Like Steve told them, don't do as I would have done, do as you judge right. Another example, 25,000,000 downloads at the app store, yet if one listens they can hear developers displeased for race to the bottom prices and not making enough, you can see the other side might gain a momentum based on (at least the pretence of) a non walled garden system. S far they are behind, but the tides can change, by virtue of them being presisely this, tides, ebbs and flows...Don't give 10,000$ to celebrate this milestone. The competition talks about a walled garden, hit them where it hurts by curating the store even better, find 100 ingenious and promising apps that are not selling well at all and sponsor them for a year. Let your developers realise that you are not there just to get their $100 to maintain the store and your 30% cut and sell boatloads of Ios devices but that you will also actively fund and protect the best of them.

Dont impose lion on people with iCloud, give them the choice to use it with snow leopard too, they ll appreciate this and they won't grow resentful when you try to sort your bugs until 10.7.3 and they downgrade to sl.

I don't think textbooks in the cloud makes sense even over WiFi. They would have to be intelligently broken up so that sections can be grabbed automatically. If you are having to grab 1.5GB (average size per current textbook) that will take awhile on a campus network.

I don't see how others are including music, movies, and games in with textbooks for a distributed iPad from a HS. That just doesn't make much sense. If they didn't lock down the iPad then that's the school's problem.

But all that is moot since there are only 10 textbooks, it'll take awhile for them to get populated, and for adoption to take place, and for the capacity to be an issue. I'm told there are 8 class per semester in HS. How many of those are eligible per semester for a textbook. Even if all 8 classes have this textbooks the average size is 1.5GB which fits on the 14.5GB capacity of the current low-end iPad.

But that's a moot point to the aforementioned moot point as these people aren't concerned about the education market, they want to find some silly argument as to why a company has slighted for not giving them everything they promised themselves.

Did you consider anything else about the iPad 3 in your assessment of doubling the NAND to 32GB for $499? Would you rather have a 32GB at $499 or 16GB at $499 with a Retina Display and the associated HW to run it? Not thinking of yourself, but of what the average customer would want do you think Apple would double the NAND without adding a Retina Display to keep the price at $499?

Personally, I want both... but I'm demanding it or stating that Apple is doomed if they don't offer it.



Good luck with that.

That's what consumers do. We demand things. Companies listen to our bitching, and they implement what they want.

There have been plenty of cases where people bitched about something and Apple listened (i.e. removing the backlight on the revamp of the MacBook Air, then adding it back with the most recent refresh).

People that think like you said that it was a business move and they were trying to save money or that it wasn't feasible. Those of us who appreciated the feature saw it as Apple being cheap and taking away a feature that we loved.

You think like an analyst, breaking down costs, what it means to Apple's bottom line, etc.
I'm thinking like a consumer. I want, want, want.

In the grand scheme of things, I think that most consumers in general are "want" while most analysts think like you.

When their kids try to load up for them a few family videos from holidays, and photos, or few nice but bulky media rich books with pictures they like, and when said seniors ask for more audiobooks, and hand them 20 cds to put on the ipad since they enjoy it so much, and get a one or two mag subscriptions, and then they go and start filling up the iPad with their 1-2 favourite music or talk shows via podcasts which they dont know how and why to easily delete, or 2-3 gamw books for th grand daughter, and then they hit the limit, and they ask, why can't grandpa take a video of your sister when she visits us and it says storage not enough, why did this nice book I bought from the bookstore with the travel pictures of Paris saying not enough storage to download... 16gb for almost ANY usage is shit, because the device is a book reader, a magazine reader, a video recorder, an audiobook player, a music player, a "radio" player via podcasts, a video player, an email client, a camera, etc. etc. ad because apple makes so much content like music, podcasts, audiobooks, newspapers, magazines, etc to readily available and easy to download.

Your implication being that he didn't bother sharing it with anyone else during his life at Apple.


I stopped seriously reading right here.


Which is why you're not and they are. Which is why they've never done this so far.


They already do.


Which won't be able to match the price, nor the user experience. It's a non-issue.


Apple doesn't "match the CPU" in Android phones. And yet the iPhone 3GS, clocked at 600MHz, outsells them all.


Until the truth is taken care of.


By making all the profit in the industry, like they are right now.


NO ONE CARES about SD storage. People aren't forgoing the iPad for it and they're not buying any other tablet for it.


I've not heard that.


Heaven forbid people update their software.


I've read of maybe ten people who've done that. Apple sells millions of computers and has tens of millions as an install base.