Apple's third-gen iPad rumored with more RAM, A5X dual-core CPU and LTE - Page 3

If you have an issue with 16GB storage they have 2 other capacities that are designed to those very needs. But that isn't quite it, is it.

Please correct if I'm wrong but it sounds like you have a problem with 16GB for the $499 price but aren't considering how the rest of the upgrades could be costly, how they are more important to Apple to focus on because they are more important to the average consumer, and many other possibilities.

Have you considered the cost of the Retina Display component, its R&D, the associated other components to make it all work well? If those aren't important to you have you considered a refurbished or used iPad 2 with more storage which will be had at a cheaper price?

Depends on how much time one spends between WiFi hotspots.

My point was that apps are automatically designed to use as many cores as the device has. The OS handles that for you assuming your compile target is the current iOS version.

I was referring from a supply chain and manufacturing efficiency standpoint. Apple doesn't like lots of SKU numbers.

One of Apple's main core competencies is that its operations are so streamlined.

Plus, I'm pretty sure ideally Apple wants to be carrier agnostic with a digital SIM card, using iTunes to activate with various carriers. However, the carriers hold the cards on this front.

Rip a couple of your DVDs, or buy/rent a few iTS movies for a trans-oceanic flight and your storage space gets eaten up pretty fast. There are plenty of examples where an online connection, either over wi-fi or cellular, is either impractical or impossible.

And even where possible, the tiered pricing structues of the carriers, increased throttling on unlimited plans, and airwave congestion are going to make hitting the cloud wirelessly more and more troublesome as more of these devices get put into use.

Yes, but you can buy a model with more capacity if you wish. Or are you saying 64GBs isn't enough?


Personally, I think 16GBs will remain, but for the $399 iPad 2. The iPad HD will be offered in 32/64/128GB models at 499/599/699 respectively. This is Apple's MO: increase functionality and storage, keep the same price points. Since the iPad 2 didn't double the storage, it seems a likely time for Apple to do so.

I would say higher storage is much more likely than quad-core.

I wouldn't be too surprised to see iCloud support for iBooks, even Videos and maybe apps ala iTunes Match.

I don't know... but I can see where 16 GB is enough for some uses -- especially dedicated uses like the Square Register POST application for retail. In some cases it is silly to pay for extra capacity if you don't need it.

It sounds like you need more SDD -- why not pay the extra $100-$200 and get an iPad that meets your requirements? You'd still be paying less than for a laptop

I have no music and no Photos on my iPad (iCloud iTunes Match and PhotoStream), a few videos (Podcast Tutorials): .2 GB, 192 iBooks 5.8 GB, 524 Apps: 36.8 GB.

I could limit the apps to the few high-use ones -- and easily get by on a 16 GB iPad.

I chose to buy the 64 GB model because it is better for resale or hand-me-down.

I don't mean to pick on you, but an inexpensive Ford Focus is not the right car for everyone -- any more than an expensive Ferrari is.

It's ridiculous for people to get mad at rumors that may or may not be true. You have one more day to wait then we'll all know the truth about what's inside the new iPad (whatever it ends up being called). The A4 was a Cortex-A8 and the A5 is a Cortex-A9, correct? The A5X could be a quad-core Cortex-A9 (like in the Playstation Vita) seeings how it'd be based on the same architecture. If Apple does do an 'A6' next year it could be based on a Cortex-A15 which would be a completely different architecture. Either way it'll run every app designed for it perfectly and we'll all know the details in less than 24 hours. It's almost like waiting for Santa to come, you appreciate what he gave you but he still left a few things off your list.

You just put what I wanted to say in words. Thanks!

Whatever the iCloud becomes, and it has a long way to go, let them first hire these 12 people they out an ad for recently, it can never replace local storage, unless of course wifi and cell networks become ubiquitous in every part of the western world, and they are far from there, Anyway by the same token of logic why not release the air too with 32gbs (16 for the os by and large)? I have much more uses for my iPad than for the air at the moment. A lot of people could easily fill up 32gbs solely with apps:4-5 games at 1gb each (board and trivia games, action and adventure ones, flight simipulators, tons of games available, travel graphic design, music, video and photo editing apps, interactive or rich content books and reference apps...very, very easily you run out of space solely on apps, and then you have apps such as food reader and document apps interfacing with servers that need to have some local storage, you might need a few more gbs to store a movie or two in cars and plains and trains from plex or other media servers, retina will make the iPad great for viewing home movies and hosting photos as well as brochures...

And of course where's the space then for music, audio books, podcasts, video podcasts and iTunes u, all sorts of mags that are very very bulky for bookshelf. Rich content books for iBooks...

And to top it all retina gfx will put much more increased demands for storage than the previous gen iPad.

To whatever level the iCloud progresses too it will barely be able to cater for 10-20% of all that, and always Witt the provision that good fast wifi (and relatively cheap) will be around the corner, or cell networks, which is not the case at all.

If at the very east there is no option for 128gbs of space (entry level storage for the air...) mark my words a lot of people will be very dissapointed if they go for either the 16 or the 32gb model. The iPad is not a phone, it's a post pc device, a phone with 16gb even in 2012 could be justified, but a convergent tablet super capable device with uses that stop pretty much where our imagination stops, simply isn't.

I ll repeat this, the iPad has so much more uses than say an air, yet you get the option for 256gbs for the air and not the iPad (and technically it is possible)...

You can always plan for the trip and upload the videos you're planning to watch before and take them off when you get back. It's generally what I do

According to my copy of the "iTunes Connect Developer Guide (version 7.3, January 23, 2012)", the maximum iOS app sizes still 2GB.

Oh, that's perfectly acceptable. I think most of us are just concerned that the iPad 3 would be "crippled" with 16GB again in the base configuration.

An iPad 2 at 16GB for $399 makes sense. An iPad 3 with 16GB for $499 is a slap to the face. Three years in a row with the same entry-level capacity would be a mark of complacency and greed.

I don't need an iPad with 128 GB of storage. But I want Apple to release one because it will likely mean that the lower capacity models will drop in price.

16 GB wouldn't work for what I'd want it for. 32 would be a tight fit. 64 GB is getting into the cost-prohitibitve range.

Yeah, but have you seen the files sizes on some of Apple's latest initiative: TextBooks?

Throw in a few high resolution games, some movies, music and, some iTextBooks and you're ****ed with 16GB.

iCloud is designed to increase the need for local storage, especially on iOS devices. It's a push & sync service, not a "hard drive" in the sky per se.

You're fucked regardless of what kind or combination of files you load if you need more than the 14.5GB of user space afforded on the 16GB model. Same goes for the limits of the larger models or anything else. I don't see why that means there should be no 16GB option if that is where the price point puts it this year. I don't want 16GB because I found i ended up needing more last year so I'll go for a larger capacity this year. Seems pretty simple to me.

I ca only see 16gb as adequate for terminal type usages, retail uses where the iPad holds a few interactive menu apps say, or a few brochures, but to me that's just about. People shouldn't be paying for what they do not need, but to make the entry model at 32 for peanuts more in terms of flash cost is a valid demand, when most people are not going to use the iPad for such limited niche uses.

My iPad 1 is 16gb cause that was the only available one then a month after release at the store and I could not wait to use one, after years of expecting the apple tablet. My 2 was 32gbs which i thought was a happy medium at this stage of the iPads evolution and with pretty good hand me down value. I was very much waiting for when they go retina display to get max storage too cause it ll do wanders for my reading.

So my plans where to max out this gen with 128gbs, if apple don't offer me that, and stick with 64gbs it will be like offering me a Ferrari with no option for leather upholstery and a nice expensive car interior (tenuous analogy but since you started me on cars). And for them to have an entry level model (cause no one can or should afford max capacities, the times are hard financially) again at 16gbs just to shave off a 3-4 or so dollars per device, on iPad 3, after more than 2 years, and for a third year it will sell, it's just very hard to stomach. Like I said, the nano has 16gb for god's sake...

And I think I am very much justified to demand that by the third iteration of the iPad it doesn't max out to as much as it did 2 or so years ago, am I not? No apple device has kept the same storages for 2 going into 3 years, have they? Wouldn't you be asking how come the mac or the MacBook pros in 3 years have not raised storage capacities?

I agree that the 16GB storage space will not be enough for a lot of people. I just want to point out that while 2D games will take up more space because of the high-res art needed. The 3D games WON'T necessarily need more space. Sharper textures and things will increase it sure but it won't increase solely because they're in high-resolution.

If that's true then well, OK.

I'd argue its pretty easy to come up with infinite examples of how more storage can be used.

My next question would be. Seeing as the features in the iPad are limited to the price point in which Apple wants to sell. What are the absolute most important features that bring the most value for $499?

I agree, which is why I think 16GB should be relegated to the iPad 2 at $399.

iPad 3 should take on the torch from 32GB onwards. I've got my money ready for a "hopeful" $599 64GB iPad 3

Had the iPad from the beginning. Had all ISP devices at one time or another. Still the ipad is an expensive toy ..so many things it can do -but none that I couldn't do without. I still need a a computer everyday. I will buy another iPad when it's flexible. My issue was with the guy who said the iPad was more flexible than an air! That's fanboy stupid.

Yay. The iPahd.

A semi truck is a toy. I have absolutely no use for one, can't do the things I want to do with it (street races, brag to hippie friends, etc.) and refuse to learn what their target market is, so it's a toy to me.

lol you cannot be serious

Exactly, which is why I don't think he is, either.

LOL! That is how the rumor mill reads sometimes.

Hello frank
It's being touted as a replacement for a laptop? Not a semi?? You need your diaper changed. Surely you can do better that that? No. The iPad is not a substitute for an air. Not as flexible nor even as an internet appliance is it a perfect device. Point made!

No, no you are justified in demanding that Apple create a 128GB iPad to satisfy your desires. That is some serious entitlement issues you've got going on.


So the iPad was released in 2010. I'll only keep with the more recent release maximums:

• iPod Touch - 64GB in 2009, still 64GB in 2012
• iPod Classic - 160GB in 2009, still 160GB in 2012
• iPod Nano - 16GB in 2008, still 16GB in 2012
• iPod Shuffle - 2GB in 2006, jumped to 4GB in 2009, and back to 2GB in 2010, still 2GB in 2012.
  
  
• MacBook Pro - 512GB SSD in 2010, still 512GB SSD in 2012
• MacBook Air - 128GB in 2008, jumped to 256GB SSD in 2010, still 256GB in 2012

So on smaller devices the capacity doesn't grow as quickly as on larger devices with a 2.5" drive space for storage, and even that is taking 2 cycles. It's almost like there is no conspiracy.

iOS supports GCD (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch). You bet your arse we take advantage of multiple cores when we can. QueueView uses GCD throughout:

http://itunes.apple.com/ph/app/queue...485706739?mt=8

I hate to keep posting this (or variations) -- but just because today's iPad movie takes, say, 1 GB of SDD -- it doesn't mean that tomorrow's iPad movie couldn't be reduced to .2-.5 GB and deliver better results. You trade-off computation for storage. The same applies to media-heavy iBooks and games -- and to a lesser extent, audio.

Apple has some pretty intelligent people, and I believe that Apple, more than any of us, are aware of the tradeoffs that need to be made to deliver the best results to the most customers.

I expect that Apple, with the iPad 3, will hit the sweet spot of hardware, software and services for me and most people... that's what Apple does best!

For those whose needs differ, there are other choices -- from Apple or the competition.

I know all the things I want in an iPad -- but expect that I'd be unwilling to pay the price of many thousands of dollars for a custom solution to my desires.

I think it probably will be because it will open up the iPad to a much larger set of buyers while still generating a healthy profit for the year-old product.



You haven't qualified how you've come to that conclusion. To wit, you've made no speculation about the display and associated components in the iPad HD will cost Apple nothing more or could save them money per unit or how the extra NAND costs them nothing to include.

You've only made a comment that sounds fair to you. That's fine for a wish, but it's not fine for an intelligent conversation that delves into the fundamentals of commerce.

Bonus points for you for an awesome screen name. <3 that book.

On the iPad the amount of RAM available directly impacts what sort of apps can run well on the platform. I would have to say more RAM is more important long term than a retina screen. Plus a retina screen needs more RAM to work well byway.

You are a master, and simply unparalleled in twisting things around to defend ANY decision apple takes, I ll give you that, you never seize to amaze me...

Here you are said in essence, whenever you reach the limit of storage in any given storage size due to your file use you are effed. And the sun rises in the east? So what?

Rhe point people are making is that 14.5 gbs on such a multiuser device will be incredibly restricting on anything more than the most rudimentary usage, and others stressed as well that it's also the 3rd iteration, and every apple device has been growing in storage in three years but the iPad. I also pointed out that arguably I can do much more things with my iPad, which is also much more app rich than the air, yet one maxes at 64gb and starts at 16gb the other starts at 128gb. At 16gb apple is fair to say is elling a device that is a teaser of what an iPad can do for most users, because due to storage it can't store almost nothing... For crying out loud 16gbs is the iPod nano.....

And what do you mean if the price point puts it. Priceoints do not put shit, companies put price points, competitors to apple are selling at a loss to sell their content and/or to carve some market ans apple can't afford literally 3-4$ extra per device to start at a respectable capacity and not one that is a mockery? We are sitting here in 2012 discussing if 14.5gbs are adequate for such a versatile post pc device? Jesus effing Christ...

...anyway eff it, I ve ended up arguing the bleeding obvious with you again because of your religious affiliation with apple...

I'm most interested in what they do to the GPU cores to up performance to drive the retina screen. Will it be more GPU cores, a hIgher clock rate or a mixture of techniques. I'm placing by bets on faster GPU cores, which probably will run between 600 and 800MHz.

As to diminishing returns, while that is true the roll off starts at a number greater than 2. I really don't think anybody will have a problem with CPU speed as Apple could double th clock rate easily and add a bit of cache. It sounds like iPAd 3 will be a very interesting machine.

Most people I know don't put all the music they illegally torrented or downloaded from Limewire a decade ago. Most people I know don't store a crap load of videos. No one I know is keeping any, much less every iBookstore textbook on their iPad. Surely this is anecdotal, but using it for mail, Safari, some apps and reading books is the likely the most common usage.

Just to be clear, you call it rudimentary usage because acting like an elitist demanding something and then throwing a tantrum if reality don't match up with your fantasy is perfectly fine behaviour? Go with that¡

And what fundamentals of commerce did you provide for this discussion? Isnt Amazon selling at loss to then sell their content? Isn't apple also a big content provider? Isn't apple also the biggest purchaser of flash with immense clout to buy it cheaper than almost anyone n the globe? You are trying to convince us based on absolutely no evidence that other costs prohibit apple from the 3-4$ per device to go from 16 to 32gbs, with pretences on the fundamentals of commerce? What are the fundamentals of commerce? Keeping your high margins and screwing the user over with storage sizes from 3 years ago?

Give us a break will you...solipsism indeed...

Cool App. I'm downloading it now.