Apple predicted to launch lighter, thinner 9.7" iPad 'as quickly as possible' - Page 2

I don't normally give two shits about what the analysts say, but in this case, I agree that Apple is taking the Surface seriously. Apple has the upper hand, and they've shown that if they can keep it, Microsoft's can be successfully defeated. Zune? Windows Phone 7? It wasn't for a lack of trying.

I think the so-called 4th Gen iPad (which is really a nice spec bump of the 3rd Gen), is a reaction to the Surface. It's possible Apple didn't know about the Surface until it was announced (prematurely, thanks goodness) just a few months ago. If so, the A6X may have been something that they originally planned to introduce with whatever iPad redesign they had planned for March 2013. Or it could have been cooked up just for the spec bump.

Regardless, if they did have a redesigned retina iPad coming in March 2013, there's no reason to push it back.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rabbit_Coach 

How about a smart house called iHome, where everything has Siri functionality integrated.

I'd be very interested in this one. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider 
   In combination with more power-efficient chips, Apple is expected to "dramatically lower the weight and thickness of the 9.7" iPad," Kuo wrote.

That means smaller batteries.  Thickness and weight are due to the batteries, and batteries are sized to give 10 hours of use given the particular power demands of the system-on-chip (SoC) and display.  Reduce the power demands of the SoC and display and you can use smaller batteries.  Smaller batteries allow thinner iPads.

Hence, as Kuo implies, power-efficiency is the key to thinner and lighter iPads.  Apple knew this years ago, and it's why they chose to develop their own ARM designs instead of being forced to buy off-the-shelf SoCs from Intel (at Intel prices.)  This year's A6 processor delivers twice the performance while consuming less energy than its predecessor, the A5.

Power-efficiency is also why Apple is developing IGZO-based LCD panels (and reportedly planning IGZO-based OLED panels with a new low-cost, high-yield production process.)  Because IGZO conductors are 40 times (40 X, not 40%) more conductive than amorphous silicon.  Apple is doing the heavy lifting to make iPad and iPhone screens more efficient.  And better looking too, since IGZO conductors are also more transparent than amorphous silicon, producing brighter displays.

Meanwhile, Microsoft is still hedging its bets with the "Surface With Windows 8 Pro" and its red-hot Intel processor.  With "perimeter venting" to dissipate all that hot air.  Like a coal-burning locomotive in a world of electric trains.

Quote:

Originally Posted by charlituna 

 

and now history shows that sometimes they will do it in half a year. 

 

Sorry but 'history shows' appears to be weakening as Tim Cook takes Steve Job's advice and runs with it. He's not necessarily doing as Steve did and the whole 'once a year' may go out the window for some things. This could be the first one. 

 

It's time to restart 'history' and expect anything. 

The market dynamics - the tech (hardware and software, components, form factors and designs), the players, the relationships, etc.- and the markets themselves in the entire iDevice class arena are evolving at a tremendous pace. 

And the boundaries between those markets and "traditional" PC's are blurring and morphing rapidly as well.  Phil Schiller may well have summarized Apple's notion of how they're going to be playing all of this best when he said (paraphrased): "And we're not about to take our foot off the gas pedal now!" (or maybe it was the obverse, "and we're going to keep our foot on the gas pedal" - whatever, same meaning).

Absent a Google "bug in the boardroom" - when Schmidt took the idea of the iPhone back to GOOG, if there had even been an "Android" type of "free OS" competitor, it would have come a year later and Apple would have an absolute numerical lead in phones as well as in tablets.  And I don't think they plan to cede their lead in the tab market to anyone, even tho' Android is there to write apps for, Amazon has a great ecosystem and Surface (well-reviewed by Wired) is launching (including a free copy of Office into enterprise markets where MS has many deep and established relationships that can't be discounted). 

• PS: Even if Win 8 - admittedly a hodge-podge - turns out to be the "new Vista," MS has enough capital, inertia and talent to make Win 9 the "next Win 7" and Apple well knows this and won't ignore them. 
• And people at large will begin to notice that they can't reach out and poke at their notebook screens when that's handy as they'll soon be able to do on virtually every cheap Win notebook - even on their $2800 rMBP. 
• It's ALL moving targets and all motivated competitors here.  That "foot on the gas pedal" - even if parts of Win 8 look like a joke - can't be taken off in any area where Apple intends to stay relevant. 

And with all that in flux, the one thing a "built on the principles of Steve" Apple can't afford to do is freeze their own business plan based on the "way Steve did it," rather the fact that he always knew how to be a disruptive force in the tech world, ready to break any business model, including all his previous ones. If the company truly has "his DNA" in their corporate culture, that's likely the most critical gene.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackMohack 

Wonder if it will keep the 4:3 ratio

Wonder no more.  If Apple had planned to change that anytime soon, they wouldn't have intro'd a brand new line yesterday that maintains it.  Never say never, though as more and more of "computing" in general moves to more svelte and mobile devices. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

So… tomorrow, then. The 4th gen is already discontinued, moving to the 5th gen.

 

😒

No, but like with its Macs Apple used to often times update more than once a year. While Apple is the dominant player now with tablets, it can lose its position. It will act aggressively. 

Originally Posted by melgross 
Hah! Caught you! After that long argument about why the iPad name was enough, and that we didn't need numbers to describe older models, "just call the old model the iPad", you're reduced to calling it the iPad 3, thereby agreeing with what I said after all.
I knew you would do it.

What manner of nonsense is this? I've called it "iPad 3" on occasion since launch. Call it "iPad 3", call it the "3rd generation iPad". It's the same thing. It means the same thing. Fortunately for the iPad, the numbers actually mean the right product. 

I never said "we [don't] need numbers to describe older models". I know for a fact that I said numbers in this argument itself. You know that; you can go back and look at it. It doesn't need to be MARKETED with numbers in the name. The easiest way to distinguish older models, then, is to use numbers—namely the year of introduction—just like with Macs. 

Maybe I'm "unique" in thinking this makes sense, too. It's how they do it for computers, and since the iPad is a computer… 

Originally Posted by TBell 
While Apple is the dominant player now with tablets, it can lose its position. It will act aggressively. 

And good for them in doing it! Let's just hope that getting the jump on this doesn't lead to the wrong perceptions, yeah? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by koban4max 

Well...4th generation IS just a speed bump.  It's possible they might drop another ipad next spring.

for the most part yes. remember, the 4th generation also includes the 28nm LTE chip, so it can be used on more high-speed networks and Facetime HD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

The iPad 3 was also a speed bump. I don't see why people are treating this one differently. Heck, this one added a new port and different LTE capabilities. 

There's always a speed bump. But usually there's substantially something else as well.

iPad 1 --> iPad 2   New form factor, added a camera, new generation processor, double the RAM, less weight, smaller in all dimensions

iPad 2 --> iPad 3   Retina display, 1 GB RAM, improved cameras, 4G, improved bluetooth, voice dictation

iPad 3 --> iPad 4   Lightning connector, twice as fast, improved front camera, same form factor, same weight, same size

Isn't it telling that the iPad 3 is no longer available? This is just a marginally updated iPad 3. If it was a substantial upgrade there iPad 3 would still be available.

Im sure Apple wants to make a thinner lighter Ipad but with a retina display it doesn't seem that possible. I'm still on the fence since I have a 3rd generation ipad , but it would be nice to have everything with a lightening connector, faster wifi, and faster processor and such. They mentioned a lot of the displays having less reflection is the 4th generation Ipad one of them?
 

Originally Posted by TheHecta 

Isn't it telling that the iPad 3 is no longer available?

This takes that out of the equation. The iPad 2 is available.

Originally Posted by tkrunner1738 
They mentioned a lot of the displays having less reflection is the 4th generation Ipad one of them?

I would hope so, but that does seem like a fairly difficult thing to get in there. I bet it's as good as they could make it, given the technology of the present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Marketing Name	Internal Name	Generation Name	Colloquialism
iPad	iPad (2010)	first-gen iPad	iPad
iPad 2	iPad (2011)	second-gen iPad	iPad 2
the new iPad	iPad (Early 2012)	third-gen iPad	iPad 3
iPad with retina display	iPad (Late 2012)	fourth-gen iPad	iPad 4

 

In your opinion what do you think they will call the next generation iPad? I think that the "iPad with retina display" tagname is confusing for the average consumer. They won't know what's new because they're uninformed. Everyone knew what the "new iPad" was of course because, well, it was new and was different than "iPad 2".

Do you think they will call the 5th Gen iPad "the new iPad" again?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JP55 

IGZO isn't ready now but I would say would help tremendously to get the 9.7" iPad down in thickness & weight. I expect the next 9.7" iPad to be the first Apple product to use a IGZO panel combined with GF2 sometime before the fall of next year if at all possible.
IGZO also offers a path to put a retina screen into the mini as soon as late 2013 and no later than 2014. I suspect this is why it came out at $329, so they can cover the cost of new tech and drop what was launched this week down to $249-$299 when the retina iPad mini comes out. A retina iPad mini would have exactly the same PPI as the iPhone5: 325PPI.

Excellent points. I agree.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

This takes that out of the equation. The iPad 2 is available.

 

You just proved my point. The iPad 2 is still available because it is able to be differentiated from the "iPad with Retina Display". The iPad 3 cannot and therefore the iPad 4th gen is not a substantial update.

Quote:

Originally Posted by shompa 

Nope.
This is the real iPad3. The iPad3 that was released was a desperate product when plans did go wrong.
TSMC production of A6 tanked and Qualcomms 28nm baseband chip was delayed.
This lead to the desperate A5X thicker battery.
Apple should of course have waited and released the real iPad3.
Apple wants to release the new iPad in late Q3-early Q4 to maximise holiday season.
This is the new Apple. About maximising profits. Steve's Apple was about making the greatest products possible, then get profit. And when customers starts to feel milked for money, its over.
There is a 95% chance that Apple will repeat everything wrong they did after Steve left 1985. Just like back then, Apple will have a couple of great years before the decline starts.
Apple have already started with a wasteful dividend and share buy back. Apple should have instead fixed iCloud (by using revamped Xserve/Xsan Unix clustering) and bought/build a foundry to produce its own SoCs and NAND flash. Just one dividend could have bought AMD bought back Fab30 in Germany. If AMD was a separate part of Apple, they would have kept their X86 license. Apple could have done a custom X86 chip with DSPs and other fun stuff they have inside the A series SoC.

You're clearly well-intended, but, damn, the only way I can put it is there's too much rubbish here to sort through your whole trash pile.

But for starters, every new strategically important tech product release is the end a desperate struggle full of frustrations and compromises, trying to coordinate the release, ramp-up and actual delivery of components from many different suppliers, all of Apple's own internal arms (in overall product design, OS and app software, ties to the developing ecosystems of the Cloud and store, relationships with telco's and resellers all over the world, the status of hugely complex IP litigation in progress and emerging, all of the aspects of the assembly and production lines via Foxconn and others, and much more - involving probably tens of thousands of people, all with their own interests and opinions involved. 

So no new product is ever "ready" - let alone everything everyone would like it to be.  And your contention that they should "of course" waited to "release the real iPad 3," would have left them with no new model for a year and half and that would have made many parts of their world - customers, resellers, competitors, the press and the stock market - more than antsy.  The loss of "momentum" would have been palpable.

The newly discontinued "new iPad" then, WAS the "real" iPad 3.  And this is gen 4, a fluidly fast, useful upgrade of the 3rd, that itself's beginning to feel a bit heavy in the overall landscape.  And gen 5 will be released when it hits its next minimally acceptable internally specced target (which will certainly include being at least lighter and thinner), whenever that is. And people who don't get that will bitch about what that one won't have.

Further, given Apple's whole history of "market segmentation" and the way they "pack" options into models, if people were going to leave Apple because they get "milked for money," the company would have disappeared 15 years ago.  And since no one seems to really be ready to let go of the "what would Jobs have done" meme, I will remind you that while Steve always loved creating "insanely great products," he was never against creating "insanely great profits" as well.  (After all, even though the guy remains a personal icon and inspiration to me, in his very first Apple business deal it's thoroughly documented he pocketed $500 that should have been split with Woz.)

And it won't be perfect, and it won't include every feature on any tablet anywhere, but it will be released. 

Pedal to the medal folks.  Schiller nailed it. 

You know, this analysis is just a bit silly.  If MS Surface does start to gain traction in the business community,  making the iPad thinner or changing the display technology will have F-all to do with regaining market share for AAPL.  Significant upgrades to a major product line every 6 months is not without cost in customer alienation.  Not saying they won't do it (they did do it yesterday after all), but it will have nothing to do with MS Surface, just their obsession with thinner and lighter.
 

I think Apple should avoid doing refresh on a predictable scheduled. This slow sales a lot at the end of the cycle and create impossible to meet demand at launch.

They should just suprise the market each time and avoid those predictable patterns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JackMohack 

Wonder if it will keep the 4:3 ratio

I certainly hope so. It seems the only area where wide aspect screens excel at all is with video playback. That's great if all you're going to do is use the iPad for watching video, but everything else suffers.

Originally Posted by TheHecta 
In your opinion what do you think they will call the next generation iPad? I think that the "iPad with retina display" tagname is confusing for the average consumer. They won't know what's new because they're uninformed. Everyone knew what the "new iPad" was of course because, well, it was new and was different than "iPad 2".

 

Do you think they will call the 5th Gen iPad "the new iPad" again?

That's interesting. Since they've dropped the 3rd iPad, perhaps the 5th will be "iPad with retina display", also dropping the 4th iPad. Or, as I've said before, it could be "the new iPad", with the 4th gen being sold as "iPad" at $399 (and the iPad 2 at $299). 

Originally Posted by TheHecta 
You just proved my point. The iPad 2 is still available because it is able to be differentiated from the "iPad with Retina Display". The iPad 3 cannot and therefore the iPad 4th gen is not a substantial update.

So why'd they keep the iPhone 4 when the 4S came out? "The iPad 3 cannot" is entirely subjective, and very probably wrong. Fewer changes are made with Macs and they're still differentiable between models.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

So why'd they keep the iPhone 4 when the 4S came out? "The iPad 3 cannot" is entirely subjective, and very probably wrong. Fewer changes are made with Macs and they're still differentiable between models.

I thought they kept the iPhone 4 around because they reduced the storage to 8GB and by then (almost a whole year later) the parts were cheaper and they could afford to lower the price in order to differentiate it.

Originally Posted by TheHecta 
I thought they kept the iPhone 4 around because they reduced the storage to 8GB and by then (almost a whole year later) the parts were cheaper and they could afford to lower the price in order to differentiate it.

Hmm. You also have to take into account that they started using a brand new chip in the iPad 2 when the 3rd one came out… 

I still think they should keep that around next year for $299. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Harbinger 

Quote:

Originally Posted by allenbf 

So now that everything is updated (save Mac Pro, which is coming soon) what do we have to look forward to/argue about?  Apple TV?  Since everything has been updated from iPod to Macs, seems there isn't much to wish for? Right?

There is still the Mac Pro.

It's a matter of time before they upgrade the Cinema Display to to same thickness, or thinness of the new iMac.

 

As for the TV thing, Michael Gartenberg mentioned something smart the other day: The entire TV market, at $30B, isn't quite large enough to interest Apple. That's amazing thing about Apple - whatever market they go after needs to have a potential grow really, really, really ginormous.

I've said it before...  The iPad market is the Personal TV market -- and much greater potential than for the the behemoth in the family room.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

The iPad 3 was also a speed bump.

Sure, if you don't count the Retina display as a new feature.

(I *still* say that to the average buyer, as opposed to an AI forum geek, the Retina display is "Yeah, yeah, that DOES look nice... so how long did you say the battery lasts again?")

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bancho 

[...] It seems the only area where wide aspect screens excel at all is with video playback.

That's what some of us were screaming back in 2005 when laptop displays started going "wide screen."  We wound up with LESS actual display area. Of course we got the benefit of... um...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

 

 

 

Seems they just no longer exist. They must be being held back for replacements. The iPad 3 is available in the refurb store, though.

Interesting. Usually, when a product update is upcoming, someone would notice slower shipment delays and diminishing inventory. This time, nada. Did they time this to perfection or are they saving up lots of them for repairs and replacements?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

Originally Posted by melgross 
Hah! Caught you! After that long argument about why the iPad name was enough, and that we didn't need numbers to describe older models, "just call the old model the iPad", you're reduced to calling it the iPad 3, thereby agreeing with what I said after all.
I knew you would do it.

 

What manner of nonsense is this? I've called it "iPad 3" on occasion since launch. Call it "iPad 3", call it the "3rd generation iPad". It's the same thing. It means the same thing. Fortunately for the iPad, the numbers actually mean the right product. 

 

I never said "we [don't] need numbers to describe older models". I know for a fact that I said numbers in this argument itself. You know that; you can go back and look at it. It doesn't need to be MARKETED with numbers in the name. The easiest way to distinguish older models, then, is to use numbers—namely the year of introduction—just like with Macs. 

 

Marketing Name	Internal Name	Generation Name	Colloquialism
iPad	iPad (2010)	first-gen iPad	iPad
iPad 2	iPad (2011)	second-gen iPad	iPad 2
the new iPad	iPad (Early 2012)	third-gen iPad	iPad 3
iPad with retina display	iPad (Late 2012)	fourth-gen iPad	iPad 4

 

Maybe I'm "unique" in thinking this makes sense, too. It's how they do it for computers, and since the iPad is a computer… 

Originally Posted by TBell 
While Apple is the dominant player now with tablets, it can lose its position. It will act aggressively. 

 

And good for them in doing it! Let's just hope that getting the jump on this doesn't lead to the wrong perceptions, yeah?

Actually, there is another model -- there was a revision A of the iPad 2 WiFi.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum 

Actually, there is another model -- there was a revision A of the iPad 2 WiFi.

Right, but like the Mac, its model number would be under the "iPad (2011)" umbrella.

Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah 
…lighting out as fast as possible…

Am I the first one to find humor here? We've said this in a few different ways before, but still.