So they'll buy Apple TVs or they won't use the feature.
HDMI will come to the iPhone. The composite/compent cables you can get for the iPhone already "undermine" Apple TV. If what you're saying were true, Apple would have already discontinued those cables. There is plenty of room for both video out and AirPlay on the iPhone.
The only reason HDMI isn't on the iPhone is the fact that the dock connector doesn't support digital video out. Interestingly enough, the dock connector is due for a revamp with LightPeak getting ready for launch. I'd expect HDMI to be supported once that update happens. The biggest question from my perspective is will it happen this year or next year?
This is a bit of a rant, but I find it very interesting that they are utilizing a dual core design.
I'm not sure if this is the technical reason, but it seems like having two graphics cores would make it easier to simultaneously process OpenCL and graphics on the iPad. For example, they could both be used for graphics in a full-framerate app like a game. But for video encoding, one could be used for display and the other to support rendering. Maybe I'm thinking in to it too much though. The chips may be able to switch between OpenCL and OpenGL fast enough that it doesn't matter. It may help with concurrency of the system though. That is something Apple does well and really improves the perceived speed of the system. Rather then concurrency, I guess there may be two cores just because they can't scale an individual core further. Normally adding one core to something improves the perceived speed. Additional cores normally don't help much with that and are mainly just a way to scale to higher actual speeds. Having two cores may also help with battery life because they could turn them off individually.
Not sure if iLounge piece has already been linked to, but it does bring some much needed perspective (and reiterates some of the things Solipsism has been saying):
That is one way to look at it but it is also the way of the novice. Rather if you want to know what the coming technology will be like one needs to start reading EDN and things like Photonics/Spectra. EDN recent covered some of the display technologies and frankly high resolution displays are out there and the manufactures have the capability.
As to a screen for Apples iPad do you really honestly think Apple would even allow mention of such a screen on its partners web sites? Seriously the company gets bent out of shape for far more minor leaks. If such a screen is coming to iPad (highly probable) we won't know about it until the iPad is released. However a few companies, that aren't Apple partners, seem to have comparable high resolution screens in seven inch size. If that size is doable then it isn't a stretch to see such in a 9" screen.
Quote:
As one of the commenters on that article remarks, "rumors that Apple is going to be first to adopt a new technology tend to far outnumber actual instances of it doing so."
This is BS too. Think about iPad. Much of this platform represents first. Be it IPS screens, Fast 14 logic or new battery tech. Then take a look at Apples other platforms, like the AIRs or even iPhone 4. If Apple isn't leading the pack they are real close to the lead.
If I were doing presentations with an iPad and expected to encounter projectors with HDMI in, I'd definitely invest in an aTV. $99 is about the same price as for a few cables and adapters.
Whereas before I'd have to run an cable from my iPad to the projector or provided patch point, now I plug the aTV instead and can do untethered video. Much nicer to be able to walk around while I speak.
Same as pretty much anywhere. Plugging in an aTV is no more trouble than plugging in an iPad or iPhone or Mac, at which point you're not limited to the cable's length as to where you sit. Bringing my aTV with me is scarcely more hassle than bringing an adapter and cable.
I ran my last semester's tutorials from an iPad but could not charge it while running the VGA adapter (5 hours constantly on used about 55% of a full charge and so it wasn't actually a problem). However, the freedom to walk around with the iPad would be great. Can the aTV drive VGA as well?
That is one way to look at it but it is also the way of the novice. Rather if you want to know what the coming technology will be like one needs to start reading EDN and things like Photonics/Spectra...
A fellow EDN reader. (Former LIA and SPIE member too.)
A fellow EDN reader. (Former LIA and SPIE member too.)
I don't know what Apple has coming I just realize that the high resolutions being talked about are not impossible at this stage. That doesn't mean Apple will do a 2X resolution increase just that it is possible right now.
Riiight. That's why a MacBook Air with a 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo is flying off the store shelves.
Apple products were hardly ever the fastest performers on the market (even at the time of their introduction), but then again raw performance was never the reason people were buying Apple products.
There's always tremendous hype before the release of new Apple product, followed by equal disappointment for some people when product does not live to their expectations. In all the fairness, Apple usually never is responsible for hypes as they keep their info sources sealed regarding product specs, and all the hype is product of customers' wild imagination.
Apple knows well what their strengths are - having visually pleasing produch with great integration in Apple's ecosystem and smooth, polished and highly advanced interface with enough features. Having latest and greatest hardware is not Apple's priority which they proved times before by sticking with older CPU/GPU combinations for their computers, missing on USB3, BR and other current technologies (and, it appears, rightly so as they keep selling better than ever).
I'd be surprised if Apple tries to change their winning formula - it already is winning, and you don't fix what is not broken. Additionally - even if Apple could implement such high res display and uber performing hardware on iPad 2 (while keeping price, power consumption, heating under control) what would be left for iPad 3..?
The only reason that could make Apple to go for revolutionary instead of evolutionary step would be insanely quickly emerging competition (which might have happened with iPhone 4), but even with all the news floating around iPad still doesn't have too much of a competition, which - I believe - will be the reason why iPad 2, while improved, will not be that much better than original iPad.
If the PSP 2 has a quad SGX, it puts it on par with the original XBox, possibly even higher with advances in shader processing etc. The next gen consoles are around 10x faster than that. They don't have to push a high resolution though nor do they have to reach 60FPS, which some next-gen developers aim for.
New mobile phones are coming out every year so they are developing the hardware faster than console makers who spread out the releases over 5 or more years. The current iPhone has the same RAM as the PS3 and 360.
These developments can really help raise the bar for mobile gaming and I hope that the developers of the big game franchises realise this and start porting the original versions over.
It has same amount of RAM, but not the same speed. Additionally, you are missing another equally (if not even more important) factor - storage. Even if hardware is capable of executing tier 1 console games, how are such going to be delivered to tablet/phone? Xbox 360 is already suffering from capacity limitations of DVD, and some PS3 titles are pushing to full BR capacity. How would 10+ GB games be delivered to iPad or iPhone, especially on 16GB models? Even 32GB models would run out of storage quickly.
As it is, iGames still have to match PSP tier 1 titles like God of War and MGS: Peacewalker (which run of 1.4GB UMDs) before they can hope to reach complexity of big consoles titles.
The only reason that could make Apple to go for revolutionary instead of evolutionary step would be insanely quickly emerging competition (which might have happened with iPhone 4), but even with all the news floating around iPad still doesn't have too much of a competition, which - I believe - will be the reason why iPad 2, while improved, will not be that much better than original iPad.
I think Apple is simply looking to "knee-cap" the competition.
If I were doing presentations with an iPad and expected to encounter projectors with HDMI in, I'd definitely invest in an aTV. $99 is about the same price as for a few cables and adapters.
Whereas before I'd have to run an cable from my iPad to the projector or provided patch point, now I plug the aTV instead and can do untethered video. Much nicer to be able to walk around while I speak.
Same as pretty much anywhere. Plugging in an aTV is no more trouble than plugging in an iPad or iPhone or Mac, at which point you're not limited to the cable's length as to where you sit. Bringing my aTV with me is scarcely more hassle than bringing an adapter and cable.
This isn't a bad idea as long as the aTV can get 1:1 pixel mapping with the projector...I think this would be a useful addition to the travel kit if I want to leave the MBP at home.
iPad + airport express + aTV + wireless keyboard is a relatively small set of tools. Hmmm with FileBrowser app and a travel NAS I have a pretty complete setup. Shame the express won't share a drive.
This isn't a bad idea as long as the aTV can get 1:1 pixel mapping with the projector...I think this would be a useful addition to the travel kit if I want to leave the MBP at home.
iPad + airport express + aTV + wireless keyboard is a relatively small set of tools. Hmmm with FileBrowser app and a travel NAS I have a pretty complete setup. Shame the express won't share a drive.
One of my biggest wants for the iPad 2 is display mirroring and extended desktop.
Not sure why you would expect Apple to change direction and go with a widescreen iPad. The 4:3 aspect ratio wasn't a whim, it's what Apple concluded had the best utility for the most applications.
Insofar that was true for Apple's design goals when the iPad was released it would still be true now. While 1920x1280 might be "reasonable" according to stock monitor resolutions, it clearly doesn't fit Apple's intention for the platform-- whereas 2048x1536 does.
I agree on the 4:3 aspect but I think double the iPhone 4 is a better route than double the iPad.
1920x1440 would play 1080p at native resolution, remain 4:3 and would still allow iPhone 4 apps to scale up, just with some black bars. Current iPad apps wouldn't scale exactly but I'd say it's the best route. Ideally you don't want to be upscaling the apps anyway. Trying to run the iPad emulator at native size will be interesting.
If I was building it, I'd just leave it at 1024x768. With the phone, I understand that people look close up at it but you don't do that with an iPad because the screen is big enough for browsing. In this video side by side, the iPad looks fine the way it is:
When reading, you can zoom up the text and still see enough on a page.
I'd rather the iPad had the following in order of importance: way more RAM (1GB), was lighter (under 1lb), SD slot, more processing power and graphics, front-facing camera. I think it would be cool if they had just one model too so you just get the 32GB model for $499 with 3G. Then the SD slot acts as supplemental storage if anyone needs it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
As it is, iGames still have to match PSP tier 1 titles like God of War and MGS: Peacewalker (which run of 1.4GB UMDs) before they can hope to reach complexity of big consoles titles.
There are games for the iPhone that are 500MB-1GB. Riven is 1GB. The games can easily be that size as downloads. Sony could switch to a Bu-Ray tech though, which would give them over 7GB to use.
Still, they are competing with themselves on this front too because of the PSP phone / PSP Go that are online-only.
I agree on the 4:3 aspect but I think double the iPhone 4 is a better route than double the iPad.
1920x1440 would play 1080p at native resolution, remain 4:3 and would still allow iPhone 4 apps to scale up, just with some black bars. Current iPad apps wouldn't scale exactly but I'd say it's the best route. Ideally you don't want to be upscaling the apps anyway. Trying to run the iPad emulator at native size will be interesting.
If I was building it, I'd just leave it at 1024x768. With the phone, I understand that people look close up at it but you don't do that with an iPad because the screen is big enough for browsing. In this video side by side, the iPad looks fine the way it is:
When reading, you can zoom up the text and still see enough on a page.
I'd rather the iPad had the following in order of importance: way more RAM (1GB), was lighter (under 1lb), SD slot, more processing power and graphics, front-facing camera. I think it would be cool if they had just one model too so you just get the 32GB model for $499 with 3G. Then the SD slot acts as supplemental storage if anyone needs it..
Agreed. I've never understood why Apple used so little RAM in the original, hopefully they'll be able to make a good jump with the next model.
The wild card here is how seriously Apple takes this market (I'm assuming very seriously indeed) and whether or not that motivates them to get more aggressive than their usual incremental updates.
This seems like a pivotal moment in the roll out of tablets as the next mass market computing paradigm, and Apple has a chance to maintain dominance. But if they do the usual Apple-esque update-- 512MB RAM, processor clock bump, maybe a new port, and a new hardware feature such as a front facing camera-- they will have missed a golden opportunity, IMO.
I think they should go to town, take a hit to the margins if need be, and make an absolutely state of the art device at a price point no one else can touch. Another year of iPad dominance like the last and they'll be firmly established as the long term dominant player. I can't see a huge appeal for Android devices if they're not competitive on pricing or hardware. Yes, customizable home screens are nice, but I don't think its enough to turn the tide if Apple plays its cards right.
I agree with your list of importance. It would be nice to have a sharper screen. But not as important as having more RAM faster processing, etc.
My only point of disagreement is that I want 128GB of internal storage and SD card option.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
I'd rather the iPad had the following in order of importance: way more RAM (1GB), was lighter (under 1lb), SD slot, more processing power and graphics, front-facing camera. I think it would be cool if they had just one model too so you just get the 32GB model for $499 with 3G. Then the SD slot acts as supplemental storage if anyone needs it.
Perhaps they were waiting to see how well the market accepted the iPad before placing a significant amount of their limited solid state resources into supporting it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Agreed. I've never understood why Apple used so little RAM in the original, hopefully they'll be able to make a good jump with the next model.
Yes. Let this be the year Apple sacrifice margins for growth. Reduce the original iPad by $100 when iPad 2 comes out. Keep the 3GS. Have more than one cheap phone ( i.e. a 3GS with CDMA off china).
If they stall Android's growth in 2011 the analysts predicting an Android rout by 2012 will reissue their reports. Developers, unhappy with the sdk and tools, will continue to produce for iOS first and the disadvantages of Android become apparent.
If your app is harder to produce for a crappier app store, and impossible to test , and the Market is stalling and an iOs user is twice as likely to download and/or pay then the movement to Android will stop.
Apple need to take a hit now to clean up next year.
I think they should go to town, take a hit to the margins if need be, and make an absolutely state of the art device at a price point no one else can touch. Another year of iPad dominance like the last and they'll be firmly established as the long term dominant player. I can't see a huge appeal for Android devices if they're not competitive on pricing or hardware. Yes, customizable home screens are nice, but I don't think its enough to turn the tide if Apple plays its cards right.
Agreed with all you said. This is truly a pivotal point where Apple gets to decide if the iPad becomes the entrenched market leader like the iPod or just one of the best options like the iPhone. I think, in retrospect, that Apple may realize that their iPhone improvements were not aggressive enough which ceded some ground to others.
Perhaps they were waiting to see how well the market accepted the iPad before placing a significant amount of their limited solid state resources into supporting it.
I think the most logical conclusion is along those lines.
I look at the iPad and iPhone 4?s logic board and see very different design signatures. I think Apple may have designed the bulk of the iPad before the iPhone 4 was off the drawing board. I think a viable IPS display was probably one of the last components to be ?developed? and an essential part to giving users a good user experience. In other words, The SoC for the iPad?s A4 may have been designed with 256MB back when the iPhone 3G running iPhone 2.0 only had 128MB RAM and the iPhone 3GS was being designed pre-A4 with 256MB RAM.
I think Apple is simply looking to "knee-cap" the competition.
Hmm... you knee-cap competition by offering more attractive product for comparable price. Basically, you try to lead within the league.
If your product is that much better and that much more expensive (which just would have to follow such specs), you are moving into a different league... thus not directly competing with other players from the same league any more.
While it would be cool if Apple could offer such super-tablet for reasonable price premium (say, below 50% on top of closest competing product?) but I honestly don't think it is possible, even if technology (screens etc.) exist. And coming out with tablet that is breaking into premium laptop price range is against the whole logic of tablets, being (reasonably) affordable media consuming/light computing devices.
Comments
So they'll buy Apple TVs or they won't use the feature.
HDMI will come to the iPhone. The composite/compent cables you can get for the iPhone already "undermine" Apple TV. If what you're saying were true, Apple would have already discontinued those cables. There is plenty of room for both video out and AirPlay on the iPhone.
The only reason HDMI isn't on the iPhone is the fact that the dock connector doesn't support digital video out. Interestingly enough, the dock connector is due for a revamp with LightPeak getting ready for launch. I'd expect HDMI to be supported once that update happens. The biggest question from my perspective is will it happen this year or next year?
I'm not sure if this is the technical reason, but it seems like having two graphics cores would make it easier to simultaneously process OpenCL and graphics on the iPad. For example, they could both be used for graphics in a full-framerate app like a game. But for video encoding, one could be used for display and the other to support rendering. Maybe I'm thinking in to it too much though. The chips may be able to switch between OpenCL and OpenGL fast enough that it doesn't matter. It may help with concurrency of the system though. That is something Apple does well and really improves the perceived speed of the system. Rather then concurrency, I guess there may be two cores just because they can't scale an individual core further. Normally adding one core to something improves the perceived speed. Additional cores normally don't help much with that and are mainly just a way to scale to higher actual speeds. Having two cores may also help with battery life because they could turn them off individually.
Not sure if iLounge piece has already been linked to, but it does bring some much needed perspective (and reiterates some of the things Solipsism has been saying):
That is one way to look at it but it is also the way of the novice. Rather if you want to know what the coming technology will be like one needs to start reading EDN and things like Photonics/Spectra. EDN recent covered some of the display technologies and frankly high resolution displays are out there and the manufactures have the capability.
As to a screen for Apples iPad do you really honestly think Apple would even allow mention of such a screen on its partners web sites? Seriously the company gets bent out of shape for far more minor leaks. If such a screen is coming to iPad (highly probable) we won't know about it until the iPad is released. However a few companies, that aren't Apple partners, seem to have comparable high resolution screens in seven inch size. If that size is doable then it isn't a stretch to see such in a 9" screen.
As one of the commenters on that article remarks, "rumors that Apple is going to be first to adopt a new technology tend to far outnumber actual instances of it doing so."
This is BS too. Think about iPad. Much of this platform represents first. Be it IPS screens, Fast 14 logic or new battery tech. Then take a look at Apples other platforms, like the AIRs or even iPhone 4. If Apple isn't leading the pack they are real close to the lead.
If I were doing presentations with an iPad and expected to encounter projectors with HDMI in, I'd definitely invest in an aTV. $99 is about the same price as for a few cables and adapters.
Whereas before I'd have to run an cable from my iPad to the projector or provided patch point, now I plug the aTV instead and can do untethered video. Much nicer to be able to walk around while I speak.
Same as pretty much anywhere. Plugging in an aTV is no more trouble than plugging in an iPad or iPhone or Mac, at which point you're not limited to the cable's length as to where you sit. Bringing my aTV with me is scarcely more hassle than bringing an adapter and cable.
I ran my last semester's tutorials from an iPad but could not charge it while running the VGA adapter (5 hours constantly on used about 55% of a full charge and so it wasn't actually a problem). However, the freedom to walk around with the iPad would be great. Can the aTV drive VGA as well?
Thanks for the idea.
HDMI -> DVI -> VGA
That is one way to look at it but it is also the way of the novice. Rather if you want to know what the coming technology will be like one needs to start reading EDN and things like Photonics/Spectra...
A fellow EDN reader. (Former LIA and SPIE member too.)
i bought an iphone 4 last week and it's the best phone i've ever owned
i cannot wait for iphone 5
if i found some use for ipad 2, i'd get one as well...
So... iPhone 4 is so good you are going to use it whole, what, 4 or 5 months..?
A fellow EDN reader. (Former LIA and SPIE member too.)
I don't know what Apple has coming I just realize that the high resolutions being talked about are not impossible at this stage. That doesn't mean Apple will do a 2X resolution increase just that it is possible right now.
Riiight. That's why a MacBook Air with a 1.4Ghz Core 2 Duo is flying off the store shelves.
Apple products were hardly ever the fastest performers on the market (even at the time of their introduction), but then again raw performance was never the reason people were buying Apple products.
There's always tremendous hype before the release of new Apple product, followed by equal disappointment for some people when product does not live to their expectations. In all the fairness, Apple usually never is responsible for hypes as they keep their info sources sealed regarding product specs, and all the hype is product of customers' wild imagination.
Apple knows well what their strengths are - having visually pleasing produch with great integration in Apple's ecosystem and smooth, polished and highly advanced interface with enough features. Having latest and greatest hardware is not Apple's priority which they proved times before by sticking with older CPU/GPU combinations for their computers, missing on USB3, BR and other current technologies (and, it appears, rightly so as they keep selling better than ever).
I'd be surprised if Apple tries to change their winning formula - it already is winning, and you don't fix what is not broken. Additionally - even if Apple could implement such high res display and uber performing hardware on iPad 2 (while keeping price, power consumption, heating under control) what would be left for iPad 3..?
The only reason that could make Apple to go for revolutionary instead of evolutionary step would be insanely quickly emerging competition (which might have happened with iPhone 4), but even with all the news floating around iPad still doesn't have too much of a competition, which - I believe - will be the reason why iPad 2, while improved, will not be that much better than original iPad.
If the PSP 2 has a quad SGX, it puts it on par with the original XBox, possibly even higher with advances in shader processing etc. The next gen consoles are around 10x faster than that. They don't have to push a high resolution though nor do they have to reach 60FPS, which some next-gen developers aim for.
New mobile phones are coming out every year so they are developing the hardware faster than console makers who spread out the releases over 5 or more years. The current iPhone has the same RAM as the PS3 and 360.
These developments can really help raise the bar for mobile gaming and I hope that the developers of the big game franchises realise this and start porting the original versions over.
It has same amount of RAM, but not the same speed. Additionally, you are missing another equally (if not even more important) factor - storage. Even if hardware is capable of executing tier 1 console games, how are such going to be delivered to tablet/phone? Xbox 360 is already suffering from capacity limitations of DVD, and some PS3 titles are pushing to full BR capacity. How would 10+ GB games be delivered to iPad or iPhone, especially on 16GB models? Even 32GB models would run out of storage quickly.
As it is, iGames still have to match PSP tier 1 titles like God of War and MGS: Peacewalker (which run of 1.4GB UMDs) before they can hope to reach complexity of big consoles titles.
The only reason that could make Apple to go for revolutionary instead of evolutionary step would be insanely quickly emerging competition (which might have happened with iPhone 4), but even with all the news floating around iPad still doesn't have too much of a competition, which - I believe - will be the reason why iPad 2, while improved, will not be that much better than original iPad.
I think Apple is simply looking to "knee-cap" the competition.
If I were doing presentations with an iPad and expected to encounter projectors with HDMI in, I'd definitely invest in an aTV. $99 is about the same price as for a few cables and adapters.
Whereas before I'd have to run an cable from my iPad to the projector or provided patch point, now I plug the aTV instead and can do untethered video. Much nicer to be able to walk around while I speak.
Same as pretty much anywhere. Plugging in an aTV is no more trouble than plugging in an iPad or iPhone or Mac, at which point you're not limited to the cable's length as to where you sit. Bringing my aTV with me is scarcely more hassle than bringing an adapter and cable.
This isn't a bad idea as long as the aTV can get 1:1 pixel mapping with the projector...I think this would be a useful addition to the travel kit if I want to leave the MBP at home.
iPad + airport express + aTV + wireless keyboard is a relatively small set of tools. Hmmm with FileBrowser app and a travel NAS I have a pretty complete setup. Shame the express won't share a drive.
This isn't a bad idea as long as the aTV can get 1:1 pixel mapping with the projector...I think this would be a useful addition to the travel kit if I want to leave the MBP at home.
iPad + airport express + aTV + wireless keyboard is a relatively small set of tools. Hmmm with FileBrowser app and a travel NAS I have a pretty complete setup. Shame the express won't share a drive.
One of my biggest wants for the iPad 2 is display mirroring and extended desktop.
Not sure why you would expect Apple to change direction and go with a widescreen iPad. The 4:3 aspect ratio wasn't a whim, it's what Apple concluded had the best utility for the most applications.
Insofar that was true for Apple's design goals when the iPad was released it would still be true now. While 1920x1280 might be "reasonable" according to stock monitor resolutions, it clearly doesn't fit Apple's intention for the platform-- whereas 2048x1536 does.
I agree on the 4:3 aspect but I think double the iPhone 4 is a better route than double the iPad.
1920x1440 would play 1080p at native resolution, remain 4:3 and would still allow iPhone 4 apps to scale up, just with some black bars. Current iPad apps wouldn't scale exactly but I'd say it's the best route. Ideally you don't want to be upscaling the apps anyway. Trying to run the iPad emulator at native size will be interesting.
If I was building it, I'd just leave it at 1024x768. With the phone, I understand that people look close up at it but you don't do that with an iPad because the screen is big enough for browsing. In this video side by side, the iPad looks fine the way it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTuQ0jWYwts
When reading, you can zoom up the text and still see enough on a page.
I'd rather the iPad had the following in order of importance: way more RAM (1GB), was lighter (under 1lb), SD slot, more processing power and graphics, front-facing camera. I think it would be cool if they had just one model too so you just get the 32GB model for $499 with 3G. Then the SD slot acts as supplemental storage if anyone needs it.
As it is, iGames still have to match PSP tier 1 titles like God of War and MGS: Peacewalker (which run of 1.4GB UMDs) before they can hope to reach complexity of big consoles titles.
There are games for the iPhone that are 500MB-1GB. Riven is 1GB. The games can easily be that size as downloads. Sony could switch to a Bu-Ray tech though, which would give them over 7GB to use.
Still, they are competing with themselves on this front too because of the PSP phone / PSP Go that are online-only.
I agree on the 4:3 aspect but I think double the iPhone 4 is a better route than double the iPad.
1920x1440 would play 1080p at native resolution, remain 4:3 and would still allow iPhone 4 apps to scale up, just with some black bars. Current iPad apps wouldn't scale exactly but I'd say it's the best route. Ideally you don't want to be upscaling the apps anyway. Trying to run the iPad emulator at native size will be interesting.
If I was building it, I'd just leave it at 1024x768. With the phone, I understand that people look close up at it but you don't do that with an iPad because the screen is big enough for browsing. In this video side by side, the iPad looks fine the way it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTuQ0jWYwts
When reading, you can zoom up the text and still see enough on a page.
I'd rather the iPad had the following in order of importance: way more RAM (1GB), was lighter (under 1lb), SD slot, more processing power and graphics, front-facing camera. I think it would be cool if they had just one model too so you just get the 32GB model for $499 with 3G. Then the SD slot acts as supplemental storage if anyone needs it..
Agreed. I've never understood why Apple used so little RAM in the original, hopefully they'll be able to make a good jump with the next model.
The wild card here is how seriously Apple takes this market (I'm assuming very seriously indeed) and whether or not that motivates them to get more aggressive than their usual incremental updates.
This seems like a pivotal moment in the roll out of tablets as the next mass market computing paradigm, and Apple has a chance to maintain dominance. But if they do the usual Apple-esque update-- 512MB RAM, processor clock bump, maybe a new port, and a new hardware feature such as a front facing camera-- they will have missed a golden opportunity, IMO.
I think they should go to town, take a hit to the margins if need be, and make an absolutely state of the art device at a price point no one else can touch. Another year of iPad dominance like the last and they'll be firmly established as the long term dominant player. I can't see a huge appeal for Android devices if they're not competitive on pricing or hardware. Yes, customizable home screens are nice, but I don't think its enough to turn the tide if Apple plays its cards right.
My only point of disagreement is that I want 128GB of internal storage and SD card option.
I'd rather the iPad had the following in order of importance: way more RAM (1GB), was lighter (under 1lb), SD slot, more processing power and graphics, front-facing camera. I think it would be cool if they had just one model too so you just get the 32GB model for $499 with 3G. Then the SD slot acts as supplemental storage if anyone needs it.
Agreed. I've never understood why Apple used so little RAM in the original, hopefully they'll be able to make a good jump with the next model.
If they stall Android's growth in 2011 the analysts predicting an Android rout by 2012 will reissue their reports. Developers, unhappy with the sdk and tools, will continue to produce for iOS first and the disadvantages of Android become apparent.
If your app is harder to produce for a crappier app store, and impossible to test , and the Market is stalling and an iOs user is twice as likely to download and/or pay then the movement to Android will stop.
Apple need to take a hit now to clean up next year.
I think they should go to town, take a hit to the margins if need be, and make an absolutely state of the art device at a price point no one else can touch. Another year of iPad dominance like the last and they'll be firmly established as the long term dominant player. I can't see a huge appeal for Android devices if they're not competitive on pricing or hardware. Yes, customizable home screens are nice, but I don't think its enough to turn the tide if Apple plays its cards right.
Agreed with all you said. This is truly a pivotal point where Apple gets to decide if the iPad becomes the entrenched market leader like the iPod or just one of the best options like the iPhone. I think, in retrospect, that Apple may realize that their iPhone improvements were not aggressive enough which ceded some ground to others.
Perhaps they were waiting to see how well the market accepted the iPad before placing a significant amount of their limited solid state resources into supporting it.
I think the most logical conclusion is along those lines.
I look at the iPad and iPhone 4?s logic board and see very different design signatures. I think Apple may have designed the bulk of the iPad before the iPhone 4 was off the drawing board. I think a viable IPS display was probably one of the last components to be ?developed? and an essential part to giving users a good user experience. In other words, The SoC for the iPad?s A4 may have been designed with 256MB back when the iPhone 3G running iPhone 2.0 only had 128MB RAM and the iPhone 3GS was being designed pre-A4 with 256MB RAM.
I think Apple is simply looking to "knee-cap" the competition.
Hmm... you knee-cap competition by offering more attractive product for comparable price. Basically, you try to lead within the league.
If your product is that much better and that much more expensive (which just would have to follow such specs), you are moving into a different league... thus not directly competing with other players from the same league any more.
While it would be cool if Apple could offer such super-tablet for reasonable price premium (say, below 50% on top of closest competing product?) but I honestly don't think it is possible, even if technology (screens etc.) exist. And coming out with tablet that is breaking into premium laptop price range is against the whole logic of tablets, being (reasonably) affordable media consuming/light computing devices.