We don't know how close this really is. So far, they've all been guesses. With a number of competing tablets and phones getting 1 Gb of RAM, it might be thought that we need it too, but that may not be as true. Apple's method of multitasking needs much less RAM in the first place. When I double click the button on mine, I find 94 apps in the fast switching bar. But that isn't a problem for the device, as they aren't using RAM. The same case can't be made for Android devices, which have those apps sucking RAM and CPU cycles,
even though they're not being used while in the background, and open.
I agree.
Compare high-end Android device right next to an iOS device. Even with the higher-spec'd hardware of an Android device, note the jerkiness of the interface, and sloppy GUI and compare that to the smooth polish of an iOS device and the much preferred overall user-experience.
Just like Windows, Android will (and always will) require more horsepower (with less battery life) and still not deliver as polished interface as an iOS device with "slower" specs.
But the android folks will return it with "but, but, but...." - whatever.
We're beyond the point now that people should care what's under the hood. Most do not anymore. It's the tech-heads and nerds that seem to want to make this the subject front-and-center.
After using both systems, iOS is simply a much more pleasurable and stress-free environment for users. Those with OCD, and micro-managing tendencies, by all means go to phandroid.com, cancel you AI account, and have a nice day.
I have to agree with wizard and DA, something fishy about this report the specs are a little under impressive. The cameras are ho hum especially the 1MP rear camera. Even if it is in line with the IPT it's not in line with Android competitors.
I can't imagine why they would have some details on an SD slot, but still not be sure if it's going to appear. Either it's there or it isn't.
The processor and GPU sound right, but given the CPU/ GPU upgrades why not "optimize" iOS to push a retina display? I thought we all discussed the ability of the A9 dual core GPU combo as being able to push the pixels technically, no?
A retina display really makes sense in allot of ways, not the least of which would be competing with kindle in readability. The ipad screen is still too soft for text and it starkly stands against the iphone. The screen needs an upgrade IMO and would be just as much of a "Kindle Killer feature" as antireflective coatings. Further it would only make photos, videos and games look even better.
Just like the killer feature on IP4 was the screen, so to is the screen on the iPad. Especially when you consider all of the chatter that "specs don't matter" to Apple. If clock rates, RAM etc don't matter then it's the screen that does because that's all an ipad really is, a screen. Everything else inside is arguably irrelevant except maybe to developers whom Apple seems all to happy to appease when it comes to iOS API's and upgrading hardware as evidenced in this report. Dual Core A9 and GPU should make everyone on the "back-end" happy, but I don't know about the RAM
Like the cameras, 512mb of RAM is in line with other iOS devices, but not the competition. Referring to the "back-end" I think devs would also drool over 1GB of RAM and the added cost would seem to me to be minimal both in terms of dollars, physical space and power usage while it would be a huge "cost" when arguing specs with an Android competitor. It's an easy spec to exploit in marketing I don't think Apple would leave the door open even if they didn't really need the RAM. I don't think we'll see less than 1GB personally. The Dev's would be happy for quite some time for sure.
I wonder how much of a report like this based on insider bar talk? Are the components and/ or prototypes people see only part of the story? Maybe some parts will get used, some won't, maybe Apple's thinking/ talking about certain components and someone is reporting that Apple already signed the contract. People talk, often out of their butts.
Interesting to me is that this report doesn't prevent the possibility of a "pro" ipad either that perhaps a "retina" display would be used in. Further it almost corroborates a "pro" ipad by being vague about the possibility of an SD card. So maybe this information is on ipad V2 and maybe some of these other rumors apply to iPad V2 "Pro" and that's why some of the details don't add up.
I could see Apple keeping the same prices with these specs and maybe even dropping Ipad V1 down $100 if they offer it as spec'd in this report and maybe the retina screen would require a $100 price jump. I'd pay for it that's for sure.
It also makes sense to include "retina displays" only on the pro models if (as the report mentions) availability is too low. Although do we know this is true for Apple? It may be for eveyone else, but that's because Apple might have bought up the entire inventory of said screens.
A "pro" model would create a huge buzz and if you can't afford it, then there's still the almost as spiffy, also upgraded, save a few hundred bucks model with the same guts and a different screen and SSD capacity.
Also this may be why there is no mention of the larger capacity SSD. Maybe the capacity on Ipad2 will remain the same while the "pro" model get the larger storage capacities. I dunno, it just feels like we're talking about two different machines with the rumors lately.
Overall to me, this report sounds "too plausible" if you will, but I tend to be overly optimistic. I'm sure Apple will milk the current specs for what they are worth, but I was really hoping they' shoot for the stars on this one.
I still think a "wet dream" ipad is what will make Apple the king of touch devices and the timing is just right for such a thing to happen. By the time you've caught your competition with their pants down twice, you've basically won, game over. It would be impossible for many competitors to remain when there are 20 million Ipads sold and a major upgrade would almost certainly help sell that number of ipads when it's weighed against the competitions offerings.
I don't agree about the display. While we all want an x2 Rez display, I can understand the difficulties of producing it at high volume. The pixels would be a quarter the size of the current ones, and how many dead ones would you accept? So far, my iPad has none.
I also disagree with the notion of a Pro model with a higher Rez screen. The worst thong Apple could do would be to bifurcate the line that way. Everyone must be able to use the same apps the same way on a new gen device. What you want is where Android has problems. Not good.
... Anyway, Apple are more likely to transition to liquid metal than to carbon fibre.
The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.
Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.
My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.
A lot of it is cost. Apple is using the best screen, the biggest batteries, the most rigid case, etc. The Moto tablet has a higher Rez, which would have been nice for Apple to have had on the first model, which I'm using to post to this thread. But it costs $800, and it's got 32GB flash. What will the battery life be? From what I've heard, it will be substantially less than 10 hours, which is a real number, not one of those "up to" numbers most other manufacturers use.
I totally agree with the concept Apple used for the iPhone/Touch, which was doubling the Rez of the screen. If it's true, which does make sense, that the high Rez screen would not be able to be made in quantity (quantity for Apple, that is), then it wouldn't be good for them to use some intermediate Rez screen, fragmenting the iPad market, which a double Rez screen wouldn't do nearly as much.
I would like to see higher Rez cameras. But we can look to the Galaxy Tab. It has higher Rez cameras, but they suck. Good cameras cost more. The iPhone costs $650. It has high quality cameras. The Touch costs half that, and the rear camera is much cheaper. The iPad actually costs less than the iPhone, but is a much bigger device, with lower margins. As the song goes "Something's gotta give!"
I read somewhere that Apple makes more money from selling iPhones than iPads. So yeah, they are expensive to produce. I wouldn't mind if the base price went up $100 if the lowest storage capacity was 64GB.
Another thing that does bother me is the stupid rear camera. How efficient can it be to take a picture with a device that is almost ten inches tall? It is too big to be taking pictures with! If they do add this rear facing camera it is pure competition pressure.
Those icons listed in Fast App Switcher in iOS 4.x are not necessarily using any RAM. They are just a list of your last accessed apps in the order from left to right in which you last access them. While it defeats part of Apple?s goal to make iOS unlike desktop OSes I do wish they?d put a badge on the icons in FAS that are still using RAM as I come across people who say something like ?I wish there was a way I could delete all the apps at once instead of doing them one at a time.?
Those are the apps that are fast switched. They are in the last state they were when you moved to something else. That's the entire point of the fast switching bar. I've found that every app there works that way. That's Apple's version of multitasking. It allows those apps to finish what they were doing when you leave them. When you come back, they're exactly as they were. That's why we don't need complex task managers. While you can switch off some if you think you need to, and the OS will do so if it needs the memory, I'm not sure if it's ever done that on mine, even with 256 MB RAM.
The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.
Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.
My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.
Carbon fiber would be amazing texture! We should also consider the iPhone 4 design and how it allows for "more internal volume" (this is straight from Jonathan Ive) in a much slimmer device. It would not necessarily have the same antenna system but the steel band for the structure of the tablet is an option. I think glass on the front and the rear is stunning and slick.
This is my year for either the iPad or a replacement of my 3GS iPhone.
I had been waiting for the iPad as my bet was that it would have the same cameras as the iPhone - and would maintain any improvements. That looks pretty dead with these specs. I'll go for the iPhone5 and continue to wait for the iPad to catch up.
I do see the weak camera on the back as a sweet spot for competitors to go after. Hopefully it will improve quickly.
I don't understand your logic at all. The iPad and iPhone are products designed for different markets and neither truly replaces the other.
Those are the apps that are fast switched. They are in the last state they were when you moved to something else. That's the entire point of the fast switching bar. I've found that every app there works that way. That's Apple's version of multitasking. It allows those apps to finish what they were doing when you leave them. When you come back, they're exactly as they were. That's why we don't need complex task managers. While you can switch off some if you think you need to, and the OS will do so if it needs the memory, I'm not sure if it's ever done that on mine, even with 256 MB RAM.
That Fast App Switcher doesn’t facilitate the background APIs Apple created for 3rd-party developers for iOS 4.0 SDK, which includes improved capabilities for a saved state.. You can hit the home button and any process that needs to complete its task or continue running in the background will do so. The FAS is just a list of the last apps you’ve used in the order you’ve used them from left-to-right.
People call it a multitask bar, but it’s not. There are a couple tests people can do — (outside of jailbreaking and using sys monitor apps*— that prove that it’s 1) not all your app running in RAM, and 2) that you don’t need to double-tap the Home Button in order to use “multitasking", something else that people seem to think.
1) Power cycle your iPhone running iOS 4.0. If those are a list of all apps running in RAM then they should be gone after a restart, unless you think Apple also re-loads all these apps into RAM.
2) Start an app you know that saves its state or runs in the background, like TomTom. Tap the Home Button, go to some other app, then back to the original app.
The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.
Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.
My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.
I'm not a carbon fiber person when it comes to the iPad. They certainly won't be able to make it thinner. It would need to be thicker, if it were to be as rigid, unless they used a magnesium frame around the edges. But then the center would feel flimsier. Like more materials, it is at its most rigid when given a slight curve, the way the current model is designed. It's also likely that if they do use it, and keep the same thickness, that with less room inside, something else would have to give, such as battery size. Unless they have even better batteries, and are willing to give up better battery life, that battery life would be shortened.
That Fast App Switcher doesn?t facilitate the background APIs Apple created for 3rd-party developers for iOS 4.0 SDK, which includes improved capabilities for a saved state.. You can hit the home button and any process that needs to complete its task or continue running in the background will do so. The FAS is just a list of the last apps you?ve used in the order you?ve used them from left-to-right.
People call it a multitask bar, but it?s not. There are a couple tests people can do ? (outside of jailbreaking and using sys monitor apps*? that prove that it?s 1) not all your app running in RAM, and 2) that you don?t need to double-tap the Home Button in order to use ?multitasking", something else that people seem to think.
1) Power cycle your iPhone running iOS 4.0. If those are a list of all apps running in RAM then they should be gone after a restart, unless you think Apple also re-loads all these apps into RAM.
2) Start an app you know that saves its state or runs in the background, like TomTom. Tap the Home Button, go to some other app, then back to the original app.
I don't think you've got this quite right. EVERY app in that bar starts exactly where it was left off, and that's part of the definition of fast app switching. It's easy for me to check, as I own the iPad, and i've been using it since the 3G first came out. There has been a big difference in the way they respond due to this. But the app has to be written so as to take advantage of it. If it hasn't, then it won't. Maybe that's what you mean. Also, apps that don,t need to be doing anything in the background, won't be. When you turn off the iPad, you're not turning it off. If you turn it off, it may react differently, but maybe not. It's true that you don' need to double tap the button to do this, but it's often more convenient, ESP. If you have a lot of folders of apps, and they're on more than one screen.
I'm not a carbon fiber person when it comes to the iPad. They certainly won't be able to make it thinner. It would need to be thicker, if it were to be as rigid, unless they used a magnesium frame around the edges. But then the center would feel flimsier. Like more materials, it is at its most rigid when given a slight curve, the way the current model is designed. It's also likely that if they do use it, and keep the same thickness, that with less room inside, something else would have to give, such as battery size. Unless they have even better batteries, and are willing to give up better battery life, that battery life would be shortened.
Like everyone, I prefer it to be stiff also, it just seems to me that if it was going to be aluminium they would keep it basically the same shape as it is now and if they are going to try for lighter yet still reasonably stiff then carbon fibre is the way to go. I could be completely wrong of course.
I'm pretty much screwed in that no matter what it's made out of I'm going to be on the yearly upgrade bandwagon anyway, just like the iPhone. My whole life revolves around these two devices now and I can't imagine why I wouldn't buy the new model each year. Unless I can't afford it that is.
If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...
You are totally right: Nothing is better than an amazing TV screen and with AirPlay you will get just that. It would still be nice to hold all your movies on this one device.
The cool thing about the iPod was the fact that I didn't have to keep looking for CDs and never forgot them because I could always find them in one place. That is how I feel about the iPad, it is like a well of information that just allows me to carry all my media everywhere, and if there ever is the need to view something on the device because I'm in the middle of an airport or just out and about, it is a viable option superior to the iPod or the iPhone.
I can just see myself going to a friends house with my iPad and asking them if they want to watch anything from the list of films I have as opposed to just taking three or four DVDs with me and running out of options.
Better keep your DVD collection small if you really plan on doing this. Flash memory is very expensive and Flash memory beyond 128GB is not even being manufactured in the quantities that Apple would need even if the memory was very cheap.
I don't think you've got this quite right. EVERY app in that bar starts exactly where it was left off, and that's part of the definition of fast app switching. It's easy for me to check, as I own the iPad, and i've been using it since the 3G first came out. There has been a big difference in the way they respond due to this. But the app has to be written so as to take advantage of it. If it hasn't, then it won't. Maybe that's what you mean. Also, apps that don,t need to be doing anything in the background, won't be. When you turn off the iPad, you're not turning it off. If you turn it off, it may react differently, but maybe not. It's true that you don' need to double tap the button to do this, but it's often more convenient, ESP. If you have a lot of folders of apps, and they're on more than one screen.
1) I think you are confusing the fast app switching API that developers can easily use so their app comes back to the previous state with the Fast App Switcher, an iOS 4.0 interface for seeing all the recently used apps you’ve ever opened iOS in the order you’ve last opened them, from left to right.
2) Yes, when you turn off the iPad you are turning it off. I used the term “power cycle” just to be clear I didn’t mean disabling power to the display.
3) I have never found FAS to be convenient. I have pretty much every app on my home screen, expect for my 2nd page for new apps I’m still debating on keeping. I prefer the multi-tocuh swipes found in the 4.3 betas. It does the same thing as FAS, it cycles through your apps as they were last used without having to first double-tap the Home Button and then choose an app.
I didn't get an iPad 1 in the end, and I am still really hoping that even if it's not retina, the iPad2 has a higher resolution display than 1024x768. That's really the only thing I want, along with the increased processing power, graphics power and memory requirements to go with it and support more complex apps. This report, if true, is really disappointing.
i, too, am definitely sitting out this one if that's the kinda specs they will deliver. perhaps, i might get a xoom or something.
If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...
i feel the same way. the only advantage the ipad 2 will have on the competition is the itunes ecosystem. the xoom will rape the ipad 2 if this article is correct.
i feel the same way. the only advantage the ipad 2 will have on the competition is the itunes ecosystem. the xoom will rape the ipad 2 if this article is correct.
If this is an accurate description of what is coming, my tax refund will end up going into my motorcycle. So if it isnt im sure I will be a happy boy in either case.
I would gladly trade "photo booth" for voice control on the ipad. Makes the ipad handier on the above mentioned motorcycle. Seriously, how many times have i used photo booth on macbbok i've had. Your useage may vary.
If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...
Yeah, every one else did with iPad 1. (Checked your stock?).
Like everyone, I prefer it to be stiff also, it just seems to me that if it was going to be aluminium they would keep it basically the same shape as it is now and if they are going to try for lighter yet still reasonably stiff then carbon fibre is the way to go. I could be completely wrong of course.
I'm pretty much screwed in that no matter what it's made out of I'm going to be on the yearly upgrade bandwagon anyway, just like the iPhone. My whole life revolves around these two devices now and I can't imagine why I wouldn't buy the new model each year. Unless I can't afford it that is.
I'm on the same bandwagon with the iPad, and even though we upgraded our 3G's to the 4, if FIOS gets to us this year, we'll move to Verizon and get the 5. I wish though that Apple would offer a universal 3G model iPad instead of two models.
The other problem with carbon fiber composite is that they're not machined or injection molded. Any holes or slots need to be machined into them, but, unlike metal or even many plastics, you can't get a really good slot or hole from this, and it needs diamond bits. I use diamond bits to machine composites, and it's a bitch. Very health hazardous powder, that also is very explosive
I'm pretty convinced that going to carbon composite for something the size of the iPad would need a metal edge, much as what we have now, for the holes and slots. Then the insides should be anchored to that metal edge, which would need inside bracing of some sort for the attachments. The device would be much more complex to manufacture, which was one of the major reasons why Apple went to machined aluminum in the first place.
I'm not saying they can't or won't do it, but I just don't see any advantage. However, I don't remember seeing on any of the sites that disassembled the iPad, a weighing of the aluminum chassis. So the big question is what does the darned thing weigh? That's the most important question about replacing it. If they can only save a couple of ounces, it's not worth it. If they can save six, it could very well be.
Comments
We don't know how close this really is. So far, they've all been guesses. With a number of competing tablets and phones getting 1 Gb of RAM, it might be thought that we need it too, but that may not be as true. Apple's method of multitasking needs much less RAM in the first place. When I double click the button on mine, I find 94 apps in the fast switching bar. But that isn't a problem for the device, as they aren't using RAM. The same case can't be made for Android devices, which have those apps sucking RAM and CPU cycles,
even though they're not being used while in the background, and open.
I agree.
Compare high-end Android device right next to an iOS device. Even with the higher-spec'd hardware of an Android device, note the jerkiness of the interface, and sloppy GUI and compare that to the smooth polish of an iOS device and the much preferred overall user-experience.
Just like Windows, Android will (and always will) require more horsepower (with less battery life) and still not deliver as polished interface as an iOS device with "slower" specs.
But the android folks will return it with "but, but, but...." - whatever.
We're beyond the point now that people should care what's under the hood. Most do not anymore. It's the tech-heads and nerds that seem to want to make this the subject front-and-center.
After using both systems, iOS is simply a much more pleasurable and stress-free environment for users. Those with OCD, and micro-managing tendencies, by all means go to phandroid.com, cancel you AI account, and have a nice day.
I have to agree with wizard and DA, something fishy about this report the specs are a little under impressive. The cameras are ho hum especially the 1MP rear camera. Even if it is in line with the IPT it's not in line with Android competitors.
I can't imagine why they would have some details on an SD slot, but still not be sure if it's going to appear. Either it's there or it isn't.
The processor and GPU sound right, but given the CPU/ GPU upgrades why not "optimize" iOS to push a retina display? I thought we all discussed the ability of the A9 dual core GPU combo as being able to push the pixels technically, no?
A retina display really makes sense in allot of ways, not the least of which would be competing with kindle in readability. The ipad screen is still too soft for text and it starkly stands against the iphone. The screen needs an upgrade IMO and would be just as much of a "Kindle Killer feature" as antireflective coatings. Further it would only make photos, videos and games look even better.
Just like the killer feature on IP4 was the screen, so to is the screen on the iPad. Especially when you consider all of the chatter that "specs don't matter" to Apple. If clock rates, RAM etc don't matter then it's the screen that does because that's all an ipad really is, a screen. Everything else inside is arguably irrelevant except maybe to developers whom Apple seems all to happy to appease when it comes to iOS API's and upgrading hardware as evidenced in this report. Dual Core A9 and GPU should make everyone on the "back-end" happy, but I don't know about the RAM
Like the cameras, 512mb of RAM is in line with other iOS devices, but not the competition. Referring to the "back-end" I think devs would also drool over 1GB of RAM and the added cost would seem to me to be minimal both in terms of dollars, physical space and power usage while it would be a huge "cost" when arguing specs with an Android competitor. It's an easy spec to exploit in marketing I don't think Apple would leave the door open even if they didn't really need the RAM. I don't think we'll see less than 1GB personally. The Dev's would be happy for quite some time for sure.
I wonder how much of a report like this based on insider bar talk? Are the components and/ or prototypes people see only part of the story? Maybe some parts will get used, some won't, maybe Apple's thinking/ talking about certain components and someone is reporting that Apple already signed the contract. People talk, often out of their butts.
Interesting to me is that this report doesn't prevent the possibility of a "pro" ipad either that perhaps a "retina" display would be used in. Further it almost corroborates a "pro" ipad by being vague about the possibility of an SD card. So maybe this information is on ipad V2 and maybe some of these other rumors apply to iPad V2 "Pro" and that's why some of the details don't add up.
I could see Apple keeping the same prices with these specs and maybe even dropping Ipad V1 down $100 if they offer it as spec'd in this report and maybe the retina screen would require a $100 price jump. I'd pay for it that's for sure.
It also makes sense to include "retina displays" only on the pro models if (as the report mentions) availability is too low. Although do we know this is true for Apple? It may be for eveyone else, but that's because Apple might have bought up the entire inventory of said screens.
A "pro" model would create a huge buzz and if you can't afford it, then there's still the almost as spiffy, also upgraded, save a few hundred bucks model with the same guts and a different screen and SSD capacity.
Also this may be why there is no mention of the larger capacity SSD. Maybe the capacity on Ipad2 will remain the same while the "pro" model get the larger storage capacities. I dunno, it just feels like we're talking about two different machines with the rumors lately.
Overall to me, this report sounds "too plausible" if you will, but I tend to be overly optimistic. I'm sure Apple will milk the current specs for what they are worth, but I was really hoping they' shoot for the stars on this one.
I still think a "wet dream" ipad is what will make Apple the king of touch devices and the timing is just right for such a thing to happen. By the time you've caught your competition with their pants down twice, you've basically won, game over. It would be impossible for many competitors to remain when there are 20 million Ipads sold and a major upgrade would almost certainly help sell that number of ipads when it's weighed against the competitions offerings.
I don't agree about the display. While we all want an x2 Rez display, I can understand the difficulties of producing it at high volume. The pixels would be a quarter the size of the current ones, and how many dead ones would you accept? So far, my iPad has none.
I also disagree with the notion of a Pro model with a higher Rez screen. The worst thong Apple could do would be to bifurcate the line that way. Everyone must be able to use the same apps the same way on a new gen device. What you want is where Android has problems. Not good.
... Anyway, Apple are more likely to transition to liquid metal than to carbon fibre.
The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.
Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.
My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.
A lot of it is cost. Apple is using the best screen, the biggest batteries, the most rigid case, etc. The Moto tablet has a higher Rez, which would have been nice for Apple to have had on the first model, which I'm using to post to this thread. But it costs $800, and it's got 32GB flash. What will the battery life be? From what I've heard, it will be substantially less than 10 hours, which is a real number, not one of those "up to" numbers most other manufacturers use.
I totally agree with the concept Apple used for the iPhone/Touch, which was doubling the Rez of the screen. If it's true, which does make sense, that the high Rez screen would not be able to be made in quantity (quantity for Apple, that is), then it wouldn't be good for them to use some intermediate Rez screen, fragmenting the iPad market, which a double Rez screen wouldn't do nearly as much.
I would like to see higher Rez cameras. But we can look to the Galaxy Tab. It has higher Rez cameras, but they suck. Good cameras cost more. The iPhone costs $650. It has high quality cameras. The Touch costs half that, and the rear camera is much cheaper. The iPad actually costs less than the iPhone, but is a much bigger device, with lower margins. As the song goes "Something's gotta give!"
I read somewhere that Apple makes more money from selling iPhones than iPads. So yeah, they are expensive to produce. I wouldn't mind if the base price went up $100 if the lowest storage capacity was 64GB.
Another thing that does bother me is the stupid rear camera. How efficient can it be to take a picture with a device that is almost ten inches tall? It is too big to be taking pictures with! If they do add this rear facing camera it is pure competition pressure.
Those icons listed in Fast App Switcher in iOS 4.x are not necessarily using any RAM. They are just a list of your last accessed apps in the order from left to right in which you last access them. While it defeats part of Apple?s goal to make iOS unlike desktop OSes I do wish they?d put a badge on the icons in FAS that are still using RAM as I come across people who say something like ?I wish there was a way I could delete all the apps at once instead of doing them one at a time.?
Those are the apps that are fast switched. They are in the last state they were when you moved to something else. That's the entire point of the fast switching bar. I've found that every app there works that way. That's Apple's version of multitasking. It allows those apps to finish what they were doing when you leave them. When you come back, they're exactly as they were. That's why we don't need complex task managers. While you can switch off some if you think you need to, and the OS will do so if it needs the memory, I'm not sure if it's ever done that on mine, even with 256 MB RAM.
The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.
Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.
My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.
Carbon fiber would be amazing texture! We should also consider the iPhone 4 design and how it allows for "more internal volume" (this is straight from Jonathan Ive) in a much slimmer device. It would not necessarily have the same antenna system but the steel band for the structure of the tablet is an option. I think glass on the front and the rear is stunning and slick.
This is my year for either the iPad or a replacement of my 3GS iPhone.
I had been waiting for the iPad as my bet was that it would have the same cameras as the iPhone - and would maintain any improvements. That looks pretty dead with these specs. I'll go for the iPhone5 and continue to wait for the iPad to catch up.
I do see the weak camera on the back as a sweet spot for competitors to go after. Hopefully it will improve quickly.
I don't understand your logic at all. The iPad and iPhone are products designed for different markets and neither truly replaces the other.
Those are the apps that are fast switched. They are in the last state they were when you moved to something else. That's the entire point of the fast switching bar. I've found that every app there works that way. That's Apple's version of multitasking. It allows those apps to finish what they were doing when you leave them. When you come back, they're exactly as they were. That's why we don't need complex task managers. While you can switch off some if you think you need to, and the OS will do so if it needs the memory, I'm not sure if it's ever done that on mine, even with 256 MB RAM.
That Fast App Switcher doesn’t facilitate the background APIs Apple created for 3rd-party developers for iOS 4.0 SDK, which includes improved capabilities for a saved state.. You can hit the home button and any process that needs to complete its task or continue running in the background will do so. The FAS is just a list of the last apps you’ve used in the order you’ve used them from left-to-right.
People call it a multitask bar, but it’s not. There are a couple tests people can do — (outside of jailbreaking and using sys monitor apps*— that prove that it’s 1) not all your app running in RAM, and 2) that you don’t need to double-tap the Home Button in order to use “multitasking", something else that people seem to think.
1) Power cycle your iPhone running iOS 4.0. If those are a list of all apps running in RAM then they should be gone after a restart, unless you think Apple also re-loads all these apps into RAM.
2) Start an app you know that saves its state or runs in the background, like TomTom. Tap the Home Button, go to some other app, then back to the original app.
The shape of the cases suggests that iPad 2 won't be milled aluminium this time, but it's not likely to be liquid metal at all.
Liquid metal has no advantages over the aluminium they are using now and is far more expensive. It's very strong for it's weight, but it's not inherently any lighter than the average piece of metal. Carbon fibre is the only material that could replace the aluminium in stiffness while being lighter at the same time.
My money is still on them using the carbon fibre processes they patented in the last few years with the 3D knitting technology. It makes sense in that they need to shed weight and they aren't likely to shrink the battery at all.
I'm not a carbon fiber person when it comes to the iPad. They certainly won't be able to make it thinner. It would need to be thicker, if it were to be as rigid, unless they used a magnesium frame around the edges. But then the center would feel flimsier. Like more materials, it is at its most rigid when given a slight curve, the way the current model is designed. It's also likely that if they do use it, and keep the same thickness, that with less room inside, something else would have to give, such as battery size. Unless they have even better batteries, and are willing to give up better battery life, that battery life would be shortened.
That Fast App Switcher doesn?t facilitate the background APIs Apple created for 3rd-party developers for iOS 4.0 SDK, which includes improved capabilities for a saved state.. You can hit the home button and any process that needs to complete its task or continue running in the background will do so. The FAS is just a list of the last apps you?ve used in the order you?ve used them from left-to-right.
People call it a multitask bar, but it?s not. There are a couple tests people can do ? (outside of jailbreaking and using sys monitor apps*? that prove that it?s 1) not all your app running in RAM, and 2) that you don?t need to double-tap the Home Button in order to use ?multitasking", something else that people seem to think.
1) Power cycle your iPhone running iOS 4.0. If those are a list of all apps running in RAM then they should be gone after a restart, unless you think Apple also re-loads all these apps into RAM.
2) Start an app you know that saves its state or runs in the background, like TomTom. Tap the Home Button, go to some other app, then back to the original app.
I don't think you've got this quite right. EVERY app in that bar starts exactly where it was left off, and that's part of the definition of fast app switching. It's easy for me to check, as I own the iPad, and i've been using it since the 3G first came out. There has been a big difference in the way they respond due to this. But the app has to be written so as to take advantage of it. If it hasn't, then it won't. Maybe that's what you mean. Also, apps that don,t need to be doing anything in the background, won't be. When you turn off the iPad, you're not turning it off. If you turn it off, it may react differently, but maybe not. It's true that you don' need to double tap the button to do this, but it's often more convenient, ESP. If you have a lot of folders of apps, and they're on more than one screen.
I'm not a carbon fiber person when it comes to the iPad. They certainly won't be able to make it thinner. It would need to be thicker, if it were to be as rigid, unless they used a magnesium frame around the edges. But then the center would feel flimsier. Like more materials, it is at its most rigid when given a slight curve, the way the current model is designed. It's also likely that if they do use it, and keep the same thickness, that with less room inside, something else would have to give, such as battery size. Unless they have even better batteries, and are willing to give up better battery life, that battery life would be shortened.
Like everyone, I prefer it to be stiff also, it just seems to me that if it was going to be aluminium they would keep it basically the same shape as it is now and if they are going to try for lighter yet still reasonably stiff then carbon fibre is the way to go. I could be completely wrong of course.
I'm pretty much screwed in that no matter what it's made out of I'm going to be on the yearly upgrade bandwagon anyway, just like the iPhone. My whole life revolves around these two devices now and I can't imagine why I wouldn't buy the new model each year. Unless I can't afford it that is.
You are totally right: Nothing is better than an amazing TV screen and with AirPlay you will get just that. It would still be nice to hold all your movies on this one device.
The cool thing about the iPod was the fact that I didn't have to keep looking for CDs and never forgot them because I could always find them in one place. That is how I feel about the iPad, it is like a well of information that just allows me to carry all my media everywhere, and if there ever is the need to view something on the device because I'm in the middle of an airport or just out and about, it is a viable option superior to the iPod or the iPhone.
I can just see myself going to a friends house with my iPad and asking them if they want to watch anything from the list of films I have as opposed to just taking three or four DVDs with me and running out of options.
Better keep your DVD collection small if you really plan on doing this. Flash memory is very expensive and Flash memory beyond 128GB is not even being manufactured in the quantities that Apple would need even if the memory was very cheap.
I don't think you've got this quite right. EVERY app in that bar starts exactly where it was left off, and that's part of the definition of fast app switching. It's easy for me to check, as I own the iPad, and i've been using it since the 3G first came out. There has been a big difference in the way they respond due to this. But the app has to be written so as to take advantage of it. If it hasn't, then it won't. Maybe that's what you mean. Also, apps that don,t need to be doing anything in the background, won't be. When you turn off the iPad, you're not turning it off. If you turn it off, it may react differently, but maybe not. It's true that you don' need to double tap the button to do this, but it's often more convenient, ESP. If you have a lot of folders of apps, and they're on more than one screen.
1) I think you are confusing the fast app switching API that developers can easily use so their app comes back to the previous state with the Fast App Switcher, an iOS 4.0 interface for seeing all the recently used apps you’ve ever opened iOS in the order you’ve last opened them, from left to right.
2) Yes, when you turn off the iPad you are turning it off. I used the term “power cycle” just to be clear I didn’t mean disabling power to the display.
3) I have never found FAS to be convenient. I have pretty much every app on my home screen, expect for my 2nd page for new apps I’m still debating on keeping. I prefer the multi-tocuh swipes found in the 4.3 betas. It does the same thing as FAS, it cycles through your apps as they were last used without having to first double-tap the Home Button and then choose an app.
I didn't get an iPad 1 in the end, and I am still really hoping that even if it's not retina, the iPad2 has a higher resolution display than 1024x768. That's really the only thing I want, along with the increased processing power, graphics power and memory requirements to go with it and support more complex apps. This report, if true, is really disappointing.
i, too, am definitely sitting out this one if that's the kinda specs they will deliver. perhaps, i might get a xoom or something.
If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...
i feel the same way. the only advantage the ipad 2 will have on the competition is the itunes ecosystem. the xoom will rape the ipad 2 if this article is correct.
i feel the same way. the only advantage the ipad 2 will have on the competition is the itunes ecosystem. the xoom will rape the ipad 2 if this article is correct.
Really? Rape?
If my brother were here he'd beat you up.
If the queen had balls she's be king.
Very nice. I'll keep my ipad1 and wait for iPad3.
If this is an accurate description of what is coming, my tax refund will end up going into my motorcycle. So if it isnt im sure I will be a happy boy in either case.
I would gladly trade "photo booth" for voice control on the ipad. Makes the ipad handier on the above mentioned motorcycle. Seriously, how many times have i used photo booth on macbbok i've had. Your useage may vary.
If the iPad doesn't have a higher res screen, I'm not buying. That's the deal breaker for me. I hope no one else feels the same way I do because I have lots of apple stock...
Yeah, every one else did with iPad 1. (Checked your stock?).
/sarcasm
Like everyone, I prefer it to be stiff also, it just seems to me that if it was going to be aluminium they would keep it basically the same shape as it is now and if they are going to try for lighter yet still reasonably stiff then carbon fibre is the way to go. I could be completely wrong of course.
I'm pretty much screwed in that no matter what it's made out of I'm going to be on the yearly upgrade bandwagon anyway, just like the iPhone. My whole life revolves around these two devices now and I can't imagine why I wouldn't buy the new model each year. Unless I can't afford it that is.
I'm on the same bandwagon with the iPad, and even though we upgraded our 3G's to the 4, if FIOS gets to us this year, we'll move to Verizon and get the 5. I wish though that Apple would offer a universal 3G model iPad instead of two models.
The other problem with carbon fiber composite is that they're not machined or injection molded. Any holes or slots need to be machined into them, but, unlike metal or even many plastics, you can't get a really good slot or hole from this, and it needs diamond bits. I use diamond bits to machine composites, and it's a bitch. Very health hazardous powder, that also is very explosive
I'm pretty convinced that going to carbon composite for something the size of the iPad would need a metal edge, much as what we have now, for the holes and slots. Then the insides should be anchored to that metal edge, which would need inside bracing of some sort for the attachments. The device would be much more complex to manufacture, which was one of the major reasons why Apple went to machined aluminum in the first place.
I'm not saying they can't or won't do it, but I just don't see any advantage. However, I don't remember seeing on any of the sites that disassembled the iPad, a weighing of the aluminum chassis. So the big question is what does the darned thing weigh? That's the most important question about replacing it. If they can only save a couple of ounces, it's not worth it. If they can save six, it could very well be.