or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple taps Quanta to build bigger iPad, iWatch in 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple taps Quanta to build bigger iPad, iWatch in 2014

post #1 of 64
Thread Starter 
Taiwan-based Quanta Computer will produce both a jumbo-sized iPad and a wearable "iWatch" for Apple in 2014, according to the latest rumors out of the Far East supply chain.

iPad Air
The iPad Air is currently Apple's largest tablet with a 9.7-inch display.


The latest rumors on Apple's future products were shared on Monday by DigiTimes, which claims that Apple will launch an iPad with a larger display in the second half of 2014. Rumors of a larger iPad, with a display size around 12.9 inches, have picked up steam in recent weeks, though claims of the launch window for such a device have varied throughout 2014.

As for the so-called "iWatch," Monday's report suggests that device will come to market sooner. Supply chain sources reportedly believe that Apple plans to launch the device in the second quarter of calendar 2014.

Pilot production of the "iWatch" is already underway, the report claims. But Apple is said to have been hurt by low yields of the product, which reportedly led for mass production of the watch to be delayed until the second quarter.

Quanta is expected to be a key supply chain parter for both the "iWatch" and bigger iPad, According to DigiTimes, the company has already landed orders for the bigger iPad, while it is currently competing with Inventec and Foxconn for "iWatch" orders.

Wearable Device
AppleInsider was first to discover an Apple patent filing describing a watch design with flexible display.


Production of the 12.9-inch iPad is expected to be particularly difficult, the report claim. Suppliers such as Quanta face issues with industrial design and assembly, and manufacturing is expected to be further set back by the fact that Apple's larger screen size is not the "mainstream specification." As a result, order volumes of the new iPad model are expected by supply chain sources to be limited.

The "iWatch" is rumored to carry a wide array of biometric sensors, making the device focused on fitness and health. Respected analyst Ming-Chi Kuo has said he expects the "iWatch" to hit shelves in the second half of 2014.

As for a 12.9-inch iPad, some have taken to calling such a device an "iPad Pro," which would act as a counterpart to the Mac product naming schemes already seen with the iPad mini (Mac mini) and iPad Air (MacBook Air). Such a screen size would put it on par with Apple's 13.3-inch MacBook Pro, and would also be larger than the screen on Apple's 11.6-inch MacBook Air.

The current iPad Air features a 9.7-inch display -- the same size the full-size iPad had sported since the first-generation model. Both models of the iPad mini have featured a 7.9-inch display.
post #2 of 64
Digitimes = yawn. I want to know when the iPen and/or iBelt comes out.
post #3 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Digitimes = yawn. I want to know when the iPen and/or iBelt comes out.

People just don't understand DigiTimes, you need to actually read the publication from time to time. As for iPen that will come along with iRobot, after all you need a pen to put them in!😅😅😅😅 as for iBelt that is all the old USB cables for the old style iOS connectors.
post #4 of 64
You know I was going to upgrade my iPad sometime early in 2014 but the idea of a larger iPad has me intrigued. I can see the possibilities that such a device would offer. I'd have to handle it first, it may be too big for comfort.
post #5 of 64

2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi

 

Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.

 

So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro? Or can they pull out of the wood work:

 

4096 x 3072 on a 12.9" display = 397 ppi

 

I highly doubt the latter is even possible for 2014. Even with more space for more battery and a next-gen powerful chip, how can they possibly be almost ready to make this device? Seems impossible.

 

These are the only two options for maintaining the iPad experience, without creating something entirely new that won't run existing Apps (not happening).

post #6 of 64
Can the touch technology in the latest iPad handle more than 5 fingers? If it was 42" like my TV, how would it stop 2 people trying to interact with it at the same time?
post #7 of 64
Please preface all DigiTimes stories with "BS ALERT".

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #8 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Digitimes = yawn. I want to know when the iPen and/or iBelt comes out.

Right after the iShoes and iSpork arrive.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #9 of 64

2014 -  Seems like Year of Bigger Screen products. Bigger iPads, Bigger iPhones w iWatch, Big Screen TVs (iTV)!

post #10 of 64
Apple doesn't talk about sources for new products, nor let them talk.

This is to pump up Quanta by association and likely false.

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 #11 of 64

It'd be interesting to see an iPad Mini / Air / Pro lineup that mirrors the Mac / Macbook lineup.

post #12 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by elmsley View Post

Can the touch technology in the latest iPad handle more than 5 fingers? If it was 42" like my TV, how would it stop 2 people trying to interact with it at the same time?

Yes.  IIRC it can take 8 independent contacts, someone made a test app to work it out.

 

EDIT. I remembered wrong, it's actually 11 contacts... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za8V2IiGCfY

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi

 

Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.

 

So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro? Or can they pull out of the wood work:

 

4096 x 3072 on a 12.9" display = 397 ppi

 

I highly doubt the latter is even possible for 2014. Even with more space for more battery and a next-gen powerful chip, how can they possibly be almost ready to make this device? Seems impossible.

 

These are the only two options for maintaining the iPad experience, without creating something entirely new that won't run existing Apps (not happening).

The PPI is certainly possible, other phones have it.  Whether it's possible to produce it in volume with decent yield on a ~13" display... well some people didn't think Apple would be able to do it for the 10" iPad, so doubt at your own risk.

censored

Reply

censored

Reply
post #13 of 64

Digitimes also mentioned Santa Claus is real.

 

I'm Shook!

post #14 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi

Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.

So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro? Or can they pull out of the wood work:

4096 x 3072 on a 12.9" display = 397 ppi

I highly doubt the latter is even possible for 2014. Even with more space for more battery and a next-gen powerful chip, how can they possibly be almost ready to make this device? Seems impossible.

These are the only two options for maintaining the iPad experience, without creating something entirely new that won't run existing Apps (not happening).

So this won't scale apps-wise?

MacBook Pro with Retina Display 13": 227 ppi./ 2560×1600?

Real question, based on not knowing anything. Thanks.
post #15 of 64
I like how AppleInsider slaps their watermark on an image found in Apple's patent filing. I guess because they were the "first to discover" the image on a public patent database?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #16 of 64
Hurry up already ! I am keeping my shillings in anticipation of an iPad Pro. I think I actually thought it into existence - I've been craving a bigger iPad since my iPad 1. I am a designer, and I seriously need a bigger screen !!
post #17 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by helicopterben View Post

2014 -  Seems like Year of Bigger Screen products. Bigger iPads, Bigger iPhones w iWatch, Big Screen TVs (iTV)!

The rumor mill worked very hard to fabricate this fantasy. Enjoy it!

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #18 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi

 

Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.

 

So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro? Or can they pull out of the wood work:

 

4096 x 3072 on a 12.9" display = 397 ppi

 

I highly doubt the latter is even possible for 2014. Even with more space for more battery and a next-gen powerful chip, how can they possibly be almost ready to make this device? Seems impossible.

 

These are the only two options for maintaining the iPad experience, without creating something entirely new that won't run existing Apps (not happening).

I reckon the screen (if this happens of course) will be a 12.8 inch display with a screen res multiple of 9 (a 9 pixel grid for every one of the original iPad)  like the current iPad Retina display has a 4 pixel grid for every one of the original iPad, or 3072 x 2304 for a resolution of just over 7MP's. That's technologically possible for 2014 and would provide an exact 300 ppi screen density, or true Retina. The rumours elsewhere I've read also mention that the screen would have near if not full Ultra HD resolution (Ultra HD is 8.3MP's) so this makes sense.

post #19 of 64

I will refrain myself from discussing with people that have some twisted understanding of screen resolution/density. Some people just don't seem to understand how it works and those discussions always end up with circular logic arguments.

post #20 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

I like how AppleInsider slaps their watermark on an image found in Apple's patent filing. I guess because they were the "first to discover" the image on a public patent database?

I'm surprised AI hasn't felt Apple's legal wrath yet.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #21 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi

Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.

So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro? Or can they pull out of the wood work:

4096 x 3072 on a 12.9" display = 397 ppi

I highly doubt the latter is even possible for 2014. Even with more space for more battery and a next-gen powerful chip, how can they possibly be almost ready to make this device? Seems impossible.

These are the only two options for maintaining the iPad experience, without creating something entirely new that won't run existing Apps (not happening).

That would be over 17 inches away from the eyes to be considered Retina by Apple's stated standards, which I think is too far away.

As an aside, I question if a 13 inch-ish tablet wouldn't be better suited as going from 4:3 to 16:10 or 16:9. At 7.85" and 9.7" a 4:3 aspect ratio is ideal but over 12" I'm not so sure, but to change that with iOS offers additional complications, even they though they did move from a 3:2 to 16:9 aspect ratio with the iPhone.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #22 of 64
Why does DigiTimes think it's for an iPad? If the screen is 12.9" it could also be for a Samsung phone, no?
post #23 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Why does DigiTimes think it's for an iPad? If the screen is 12.9" it could also be for a Samsung phone, no?

Because it's all a lie and the only thing they are really interested in are page views?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #24 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That would be over 17 inches away from the eyes to be considered Retina by Apple's stated standards, which I think is too far away.

As an aside, I question if a 13 inch-ish tablet wouldn't be better suited as going from 4:3 to 16:10 or 16:9.
16:10 would be good. You go to wide the height suffers. 16:9 screens need to be rather big to work well, I'd say almost 17"
Quote:
At 7.85" and 9.7" a 4:3 aspect ratio is ideal but over 12" I'm not so sure, but to change that with iOS offers additional complications, even they though they did move from a 3:2 to 16:9 aspect ratio with the iPhone.

What complications? Anything Apple does will result in apps requiring updates. What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device, The proble with that is that doubling any current screen does not produce a machine of the size described.
post #25 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMac View Post

Hurry up already ! I am keeping my shillings in anticipation of an iPad Pro. I think I actually thought it into existence - I've been craving a bigger iPad since my iPad 1. I am a designer, and I seriously need a bigger screen !!
I've been wondering about an iPad that size also. No designing on the iPad for me just old eyes.
post #26 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device.

I wouldn't use it. Seems totally moronic to create a tablet where the focus is Full Screen, for all its intends, and then make the application smaller again because we can now have 2 apps side by side. I think that should only be available to windowed systems, like OSX.
post #27 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by Crowley View Post

Yes.  IIRC it can take 8 independent contacts, someone made a test app to work it out.

EDIT. I remembered wrong, it's actually 11 contacts... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za8V2IiGCfY

The PPI is certainly possible, other phones have it.  Whether it's possible to produce it in volume with decent yield on a ~13" display... well some people didn't think Apple would be able to do it for the 10" iPad, so doubt at your own risk.
On phones, yes. A 12.9" tablet display with almost 400 ppi...no.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

So this won't scale apps-wise?

MacBook Pro with Retina Display 13": 227 ppi./ 2560×1600?

Real question, based on not knowing anything. Thanks.
So far Apples approach to retina displays has been to double pixels in both directions and maintain aspect ratios. Except iPhone 5, which simply added vertical pixels to fill in the new vertical space. On an iPad with the same aspect ratio as today, an increase in both vertical and horizontal inches would be required. Just like a decrease in both vertical and horizontal inches was required to create the iPad mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

I reckon the screen (if this happens of course) will be a 12.8 inch display with a screen res multiple of 9 (a 9 pixel grid for every one of the original iPad)  like the current iPad Retina display has a 4 pixel grid for every one of the original iPad, or 3072 x 2304 for a resolution of just over 7MP's. That's technologically possible for 2014 and would provide an exact 300 ppi screen density, or true Retina. The rumours elsewhere I've read also mention that the screen would have near if not full Ultra HD resolution (Ultra HD is 8.3MP's) so this makes sense.

This is intriguing. And that resolution seems a lot more attainable. Question remains, can that sort of uneven pixel distribution work?
post #28 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

What complications? Anything Apple does will result in apps requiring updates. What would be neat would be the ability to run apps side by side on a wide screen device, The proble with that is that doubling any current screen does not produce a machine of the size described.

The 7.9" iPad mini with same resolution and aspect ratio as the iPad Air, as well as being close enough in size to the original allowed for zero changes in the SDK or App Store apps to accommodate the new size.

Going down (I.e.: denser PPI) allows for more range than going up.

Side by side offers an interesting solution. Are there any solutions that scale perfectly, like the iPad Mini using the same resolution as the iPad Air but same PPI as iPhone?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #29 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Right after the iShoes and iSpork arrive.

Don't waste your money. Buy the Galaxy Spork.

post #30 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Why does DigiTimes think it's for an iPad? If the screen is 12.9" it could also be for a Samsung phone, no?

Not in 2014. Samsung likes to "innovate" in 0.2-inch increments, in order to milk every last drop of "innovation" out of the phablet market.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #31 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich 
Right after the iShoes and iSpork arrive.

Don't waste your money. Buy the Galaxy Spork.

If we're talking about a "no compromise" device that makes for both a less than adequate spoon and worthless fork then I think we're talking about the MS Spork.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #32 of 64
post #33 of 64

ˆ Haha!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #34 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott View Post

Don't waste your money. Buy the Galaxy Spork.
I think that includes a stylus-toothpick hybrid as well.
post #35 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich View Post


Right after the iShoes and iSpork arrive.

Ooooh, I was going to buy a ti spork but now I'll just wait for the 2014 iSpork!

post #36 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

2048 x 1536 on a 12.9" display = 198 ppi

 

Compared to the iPad Air at 263 ppi, which just barely cuts it for a "Retina" display.

 

So what's it gonna be? Is Apple going to accept this very low ppi for its iPad Pro?...

 

I don't think you understand what Apple's definition of a "retina" display is.

 

Any display where you can't discern individual pixels at the "normal" viewing distance is consider a retina display by Apple. Knowing Apple, I would guess with a 12.9" tablet they will use the same 2048x1536 resolution and then claim at the viewing distance they consider normal for the device, pixels can't be seen so it will be retina.

 

-kpluck

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply

Do you use MagicJack?

The default settings will automatically charge your credit card each year for service renewal. You will not be notified or warned in anyway. You can turn auto renewal off.

Reply
post #37 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by kpluck View Post

I don't think you understand what Apple's definition of a "retina" display is.

Any display where you can't discern individual pixels at the "normal" viewing distance is consider a retina display by Apple. Knowing Apple, I would guess with a 12.9" tablet they will use the same 2048x1536 resolution and then claim at the viewing distance they consider normal for the device, pixels can't be seen so it will be retina.

-kpluck

I think he does know, but the real question is would it really be held farther away than the Pad Air under "normal" conditions? We're talking about no less than slightly over 17" away from the eyes for the minimal Retina effect for someone with 20/20 vision, according to Apple's definition.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #38 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

According to DigiTimes,

Oh that's a shame, I wanted this rumour to be true.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple is said to have been hurt by low yields of the product
Seriously though, shut the f*** up. Why does this nonsense have to be dragged out whenever Apple tries to make anything?
post #39 of 64

Does it have to be for a larger iPad or could it really be a new touch screen for a 13" MacBook?  I know Apple has said that converging the notebook and the tablet doesn't make sense, but they deny lots of things that eventually come to be.

post #40 of 64
Quote:
Originally Posted by pardeemp View Post
 

Does it have to be for a larger iPad or could it really be a new touch screen for a 13" MacBook?  I know Apple has said that converging the notebook and the tablet doesn't make sense, but they deny lots of things that eventually come to be.

That's one that won't. They've stated quite flatly, even recently, that they are two separate things that will remain separate.

 

What these reports could refer to is a 12" Retina Display for MacBook Air. But, I can't see why Apple would need to source a new supplier for such a relatively low volume product.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Rumor: Apple taps Quanta to build bigger iPad, iWatch in 2014