1) the Fall upgrade cycle, as originally suggested by Gruber, seems to make sense for the iPad as a product.
2) the iPad 1, likely, was announced when it was because: it (and the iOS fork) was ready; the devs needed lead time for the new form factor; to set the bar for the competition; to have time to define and build demand for the product. Having all been been successfully addressed, these reasons no longer make much sense for the product line.
3) we can assume that by Fall 2011 iPad 2 supply demand will be in balance -- with adequate supply for the holiday season
4) if done properly, a Fall addition to the iPad line at the upper end should have little effect on the holiday buying of the iPad 2 -- it could actually help sales of the iPad 2. Price, availability, features are all part of this as well as not obsolescing or reducing the appeal of the iPad 2. It is a classic marketing problem -- Apple should be able to do this.
5) as some others have mentioned, there are some "power" enhancements needed for more specialized uses of an iPad -- in Photo Editing, AV Post Processing, CAD, Medicine, Education, Gaming, etc. While these uses can justify a more expensive iPad, "normal" user requirements are better met by a less-expensive main-stream iPad -- the iPad 2.
We have 3 iPad 2s and 3 iPad 1s -- I bought a referb iPad 1 at the same time I ordered the iPad 2s.
I don't think of the iPad 1 as a second-class citizen.
I will buy at least 1 of the next version of iPad -- but do not expect to feel either the iPad 1s or iPad 2s will be obsolete.
I think we will be better served over a 2-3 year period with iPads of varying ages than with traditional computers (any form factor) of varying ages -- and will have saved an estimated $3,000-$4,000 in accessories, software, batteries, etc.
I want to throw this final item in just to stir the pot.
Within the next month or 2 Apple is expected to release "jaw-dropping" versions of its "Pro" apps: Final Cut Studio and Logic. These apps currently have very complex, specialized (read non-Apple) UIs. They seem to "cry out" for a simplified, intuitive, multitouch UI. An iPad as a graphics tablet or control surface could greatly enhance these products.
The Mac Pro Apps use special Apple ProRes codecs to efficiently process and manipulate high-quality video, The codecs were ported to iOS 4.3... but no iOS apps use them...
The iPad 2 demos of GarageBand and iMovie point the way for A/V editing and production using a touch interface. Randy Ubillos, who did the iPad 2 iMove demo is the originator of what was later to become Final Cut.
Call me crazy, but Apple could release a specialty iPad device, with ThunderBolt, as a multitouch UI accessory for these new Pro Mac apps -- and it could be tied to a release cycle independent from the "traditional" iPad line.
.
You still haven't presented a good reason other than you think it's a good time. Not only is that not enough, but you haven't addressed the real, hard reasons why it isn't a good idea. It seems as though no one here who wants this to come out in September wants to deal with these issues.
I work with FCS, and I've worked with it from the beginning. It's got a great UI, one of the best. It's way too complex to be used with fingers. It would need to be totally reworked from the ground up, and I doubt editors would accept it. We all use specialized keyboards with shortcuts. Right now, I can't even imagine how this could be ported over to multitouch. It would also need a tablet with a much larger screen, and much more powerful processing. It would also need large fast external storage, something that Apple, so far isn't allowing.
Imagining all this is nice, but it's years away, if ever.
I'm thinking that there needs to be a standard protocol for cloud computing. We are already hobbled with different disk based formats be it HFS+ NTFS or Unix file systems. The cloud needs to be a universal file system which of course necessitates iOS having one.
Why does it matter what the underlying file system is? Already when looking at a hard disk you can't tell if it's NTFS, HFS+, Fat32, etc.
I do think the cloud hard disk needs to handle syncing well - multiple versions, deleted files etc. That's some difficult background processes to get right.
Microsoft and Apple and Google don't need to use the same systems in any way.
I'm thinking that there needs to be a standard protocol for cloud computing. We are already hobbled with different disk based formats be it HFS+ NTFS or Unix file systems. The cloud needs to be a universal file system which of course necessitates iOS having one.
The problem with "cloud" computing is that every company has their own standards and implementations. Companies that go with one can't easily move to another. Until there is a standard, it will be a fragmented industry. And then, there will be big winners and big losers.
I think that the best Apple can do is something like Dropbox. That's not even close to what cloud computing means, it's just a more sophisticated version of web based storage and retrieval, something that's been around in one form or another for ages.
Why does it matter what the underlying file system is? Already when looking at a hard disk you can't tell if it's NTFS, HFS+, Fat32, etc.
I do think the cloud hard disk needs to handle syncing well - multiple versions, deleted files etc. That's some difficult background processes to get right.
Microsoft and Apple and Google don't need to use the same systems in any way.
If it's really cloud based, it would have to be transparent. You should be able to mix your stuff no matter where you had it, and you shouldn't need many accounts and passwords to do so. Right now, that's impossible.
I work with FCS, and I've worked with it from the beginning. It's got a great UI, one of the best. It's way too complex to be used with fingers. It would need to be totally reworked from the ground up, and I doubt editors would accept it. We all use specialized keyboards with shortcuts. Right now, I can't even imagine how this could be ported over to multitouch. It would also need a tablet with a much larger screen, and much more powerful processing. It would also need large fast external storage, something that Apple, so far isn't allowing.
I agree with the rest of what you are saying, Melgross, however on this (multi-touch and FCS) I think it's more a case of sooner rather than later. And an iPad wouldn't need to be the engine for FCS, but rather the steering wheel.
An iPad as a graphics tablet or control surface could greatly enhance these products.
There are already third party apps out there which control Logic, or any other DAW out there. Apple may or may not choose to come out with their own app, but here's a couple that are available: First pic is AC-7, second pic is TouchOsc.
But you're not addressing any major matters such as fragmentation, new SoC, R&D lag time, manufacturing line development, etc.
All of this must be addressed first. Of course, there will be more people unhappy that Apple came out with a new model so soon than people who will be happy about it.
As to fragmentation -- Apple should take care that any enhancement to the line is a compiatible superset of the iPad and iPhone -- ala the iPhone and iPad.
The CPU and GPU are variants of current designs -- so the R&D should be a continuation of the A5 design.
I like to think that Apple has several teams working concurrently: current product version; next product version; next product version + 1. The teams have some common management and technicians. I believe they should be near completion of quad quad SoC be manufactured (in lower quantity) in Tiwan and/or Texas.
That makes no sense, and would be a very bad marketing step.
It would be a terrible step for Apple, and anybody who is arguing for a retina display is only doing so for their own selfish reasons. These people can't possibly have any business or marketing sense.
Apple would piss off and alienate tens of millions of customers and it would be a terrible business strategy on their part. Apple is not in it for a quick buck like some other companies are. Apple wouldn't resort to such shady practices. Can you imagine tens of millions of customers who just bought an iPad2 and immediately after, a new improved ,magical iPad comes along?
Resorting to quicker product refreshes would also hurt Apple sales as more people would skip over multiple refreshes before they upgraded. There is not a single good reason for Apple releasing an iPad3 in the fall, but there are plenty of good reasons for why it would be a terrible mistake for them.
I agree the iPhone 4 takes remarkably good photographs...for a phone. Good enough for most people probably not to need a point and shoot. But you chose the word 'stunning', not me. Landscape photography requires superb glass and a reasonably-sized sensor to get 'stunning', something no tablet will ever have. It's not important though, I see your point. Photographs on a double-res iPad would be joyous. That said, I don't see the iPad ever being an ideal device for taking pictures. I think Apple got it spot on to make the cameras FaceTime-ready rather than reaching for the stars with the specs without justification.
I hope you get your iPad3, but I don't see it happening and I think when you can't come up with a 'single good reason' for doing something, that's usually the time when you decide not to do that thing :P Especially when it costs millions of dollars to do it!
No, I long ago came up with a very good reason for them to do a higher-res iPad, just not one I can convince Mel Gross with, at least for the near term, as in September. That reason would be: the iPhone 4 screen, and even the iPod touch screen, make the iPad look second-rate. That cannot stand for the likes of Jobs, Ive, and whoever else at Apple is a fanatic about making the best possible thing.
The 'stunning' part I will stand by, but so qualified to say that the average visually sensitized Apple fan will be knocked out. Maybe not so much the professional photographer, whose standards will not allow overlooking the tiny lens.
About landscape, you are completely right to dismiss that on the basis of the lens and sensor. It would be a very particular kind of scene and lighting to pull off a good shot. What I had in mind with that was composition. Many see the form of the iPad as too awkward to handle. I see its rectangular 'slabness' as a potential advantage, both in stability and in framing a scene in that big window of a screen.
Change the form of the tool and the kind of work you do changes too. Unpredictable how it will be used in any detail, really.
No, I long ago came up with a very good reason for them to do a higher-res iPad, just not one I can convince Mel Gross with, at least for the near term, as in September. That reason would be: the iPhone 4 screen, and even the iPod touch screen, make the iPad look second-rate. That cannot stand for the likes of Jobs, Ive, and whoever else at Apple is a fanatic about making the best possible thing.
The 'stunning' part I will stand by, but so qualified to say that the average visually sensitized Apple fan will be knocked out. Maybe not so much the professional photographer, whose standards will not allow overlooking the tiny lens.
About landscape, you are completely right to dismiss that on the basis of the lens and sensor. It would be a very particular kind of scene and lighting to pull off a good shot. What I had in mind with that was composition. Many see the form of the iPad as too awkward to handle. I see its rectangular 'slabness' as a potential advantage, both in stability and in framing a scene in that big window of a screen.
Change the form of the tool and the kind of work you do changes too. Unpredictable how it will be used in any detail, really.
That?s ?a? reason, it?s not a good reason. You can?t measure the pixel density and assume that a display 8x the size is just as easy to produce and can work with the same internal HW. In fact, you be assured that the A4 in the first iPad is pushing more pixels than the A4 in the iPhone/iPod Touch.
You still haven't presented a good reason other than you think it's a good time. Not only is that not enough, but you haven't addressed the real, hard reasons why it isn't a good idea. It seems as though no one here who wants this to come out in September wants to deal with these issues.
I work with FCS, and I've worked with it from the beginning. It's got a great UI, one of the best. It's way too complex to be used with fingers. It would need to be totally reworked from the ground up, and I doubt editors would accept it. We all use specialized keyboards with shortcuts. Right now, I can't even imagine how this could be ported over to multitouch. It would also need a tablet with a much larger screen, and much more powerful processing. It would also need large fast external storage, something that Apple, so far isn't allowing.
Imagining all this is nice, but it's years away, if ever.
My simplest answer is that Apple is in a position to dominate the tablet market (post pc industry) for years to come.
Their strategy should be to control that market by providing attractive, affordable solutions that are only available from Apple.
Their tactics should be to gain and maintain the high ground before the competition can muddy the waters -- the sooner, the better!
I agree with the rest of what you are saying, Melgross, however on this (multi-touch and FCS) I think it's more a case of sooner rather than later. And an iPad wouldn't need to be the engine for FCS, but rather the steering wheel.
Well, we would have to examine why Apple would be doing this. Unlike as with consumer equipment, pros are a very conservative crowd. It takes along time to learn a complex program, much less an entire suite. Look how long it's taken Apple to come out with the major upgrade we'll be seeing in April. How long would it take for them to entirely rework the suite for multitouch? Years! And what incentive would they have? It's already got a good thirds of the pro market, maybe more.
And then there's the Mac Pro, which I use with it. How would they get this to work with a tablet? Motion needs a very hefty machine, including a good graphics card. I can't wait to get a 6970.
If they do this at all, it will be years before it's practical.
If you're just talking about it as a controller, that's different.
My simplest answer is that Apple is in a position to dominate the tablet market (post pc industry) for years to come.
Their strategy should be to control that market by providing attractive, affordable solutions that are only available from Apple.
Their tactics should be to gain and maintain the high ground before the competition can muddy the waters -- the sooner, the better!
As to FCS -- we differ on the UI.
.
The problem with all this wishful thinking is that it?s beyond the scope of analysis and reasoning. If having a 2048x1536 display would be so great and Apple can simply will it into existence then why doesn?t the iPad 2 have it?
The problem with all this wishful thinking is that it?s beyond the scope of analysis and reasoning. If having a 2048x1536 display would be so great and Apple can simply will it into existence then why doesn?t the iPad 2 have it?
I didn't say that -- retina iPad is only 1 feature -- one step on the path forward.
I do believe that Apple knows where it is going with this in the next 3 years.
The iPad 2 is not the end game -- only a small step for ConsumerKind!
I didn't say that -- retina iPad is only 1 feature -- one step on the path forward.
I do believe that Apple knows where it is going with this in the next 3 years.
The iPad 2 is not the end game -- only a small step for ConsumerKind!
.
That’s pretty much what all the iPad 3 in 2011 rumours are about. I don’t recall reading anything else that said anything different on the subject, but my apologies for misinterpreting your words.
What else would you expect for an iPad 3 for 2011? Why not release it as the iPad 2? Why not wait a few months to release it as the 2012 iPad? I certainly don’t think Apple will be suffering from a plethora of competing tablets anytime this year. People aren’t buying the iPad because it’s slightly cheaper than some other tablet on the market.
Of course it’s a step, the next one will be iPad 3, but I think a yearly step is most likely not a 6 month step. Note that I offered arguments as to why Apple would want to do this, but think they won’t. I don’t get why rational thoughts are being pushed to the side for desire for an iPad 3. Take Flaneur’s comment of an 8x larger display has a lower pixel density so Apple will have to update it this year. I simply don’t see how that makes sense.
As to fragmentation -- Apple should take care that any enhancement to the line is a compiatible superset of the iPad and iPhone -- ala the iPhone and iPad.
The CPU and GPU are variants of current designs -- so the R&D should be a continuation of the A5 design.
I like to think that Apple has several teams working concurrently: current product version; next product version; next product version + 1. The teams have some common management and technicians. I believe they should be near completion of quad quad SoC be manufactured (in lower quantity) in Tiwan and/or Texas.
They can't do much about the processors until both ARM and Imagination come out with new designs. Apple's CPU is just a customized version of an ARM standard design which they license. The imagination gpu is Imagination's design. Until the next designs come out, there isn't much Apple or other companies can do. Nvidia has shown a 4 core version, but that's all they've done so far is to show it. September is just 6 months away. Apple would be rushed to make a major design effort and go to manufacturing with all the production lines already running at max.
I have no doubt they're working on two generations of devices at once, and have a third they're just sketching out. But the second won't be near finishing until shortly before production begins, a month or so before release. We know Apple runs lean teams. Whether they have enough engineers to come this close to completion of the second design shortly after release of the first is questionable. Whether they would want to is an additional question.
If they've got two models that are current at the same time, and one has a much higher Rez and better performance, fragmentation is something that has happened. It will be out of their hands once developers, both hardware and software get to it.
We can see that from some games that are out now. Real Racing 2 will have true 1080p output from the iPad 2. And it will use the iPad as a controller. How cool is that? Can't be done on the iPad 1. But that the olde model. What would happen if it were a current one?
People would be ticked, at the least. They understand that older models don't get the best, but if they're current, it's different. I don't think people would be happy.
While Apple may not release cloud based IOS5 in june, most likely a new iphone model will be released. Apples Iphone4 sales will be deteriorating as we move closer to june and Apple will have to meets its schedule to keep the $$$$ coming in. Of course component bottlenecks might be an issue, however I would think that Apple has alternate suppliers set up.
There are already third party apps out there which control Logic, or any other DAW out there. Apple may or may not choose to come out with their own app, but here's a couple that are available: First pic is AC-7, second pic is TouchOsc.
Good to know that... i do not use logic personally, but have a singer/composer friend who has been graduating from GB to Logic to create her debut CD/DVD.
I will send this to her.
I hope to see some similar apps for FCS -- maybe a nodes and noodles interface ala Shake.
Because of the large video files, a high-speed connection between the iPad and the Mac would, be adnantageous -- ThunderBolt, for example.
No, I long ago came up with a very good reason for them to do a higher-res iPad, just not one I can convince Mel Gross with, at least for the near term, as in September. That reason would be: the iPhone 4 screen, and even the iPod touch screen, make the iPad look second-rate. That cannot stand for the likes of Jobs, Ive, and whoever else at Apple is a fanatic about making the best possible thing.
The 'stunning' part I will stand by, but so qualified to say that the average visually sensitized Apple fan will be knocked out. Maybe not so much the professional photographer, whose standards will not allow overlooking the tiny lens.
About landscape, you are completely right to dismiss that on the basis of the lens and sensor. It would be a very particular kind of scene and lighting to pull off a good shot. What I had in mind with that was composition. Many see the form of the iPad as too awkward to handle. I see its rectangular 'slabness' as a potential advantage, both in stability and in framing a scene in that big window of a screen.
Change the form of the tool and the kind of work you do changes too. Unpredictable how it will be used in any detail, really.
If what you are saying were true, then people wouldn't be standing in lines to buy one. They would be bitching about how bad the display is. But actually, the display is great. The new one is even better than the old. For one, it's brighter. It's also warmer. My biggest gripe about the old one was that my meter measured it as 7,200k. The new one is closer to the standard 6,500k, about 6,300k. It's noticeable immediately. The blacks are also better due to the warmth. The old one's blacks were weaker.
While I have no argument as to your interest in using this to take photos, very few people will be using it that way. You can use Photosnitch to wirelessly move photos from your camera to your iPad. You can view them as they come to the screen, in RAW, and magnify them up to 100%. you can organize them and do most everything except edit, though they're working on that. There are other apps to let you do somewhat similar things such as control your camera from your iPhone or iPad.
That seems to be a much better use of this device then actually taking pictures with it. I've got a Canon 5DmkII. It's a pretty good camera, but a colleague and I have been beta testing Leaf backs since they first came out. If I were a landscape photog. I would much rather use one of those as my friend does. Earlier, last year, we tested their new 80MP back. Now, THAT'S a landscape back.
Comments
Several things:
1) the Fall upgrade cycle, as originally suggested by Gruber, seems to make sense for the iPad as a product.
2) the iPad 1, likely, was announced when it was because: it (and the iOS fork) was ready; the devs needed lead time for the new form factor; to set the bar for the competition; to have time to define and build demand for the product. Having all been been successfully addressed, these reasons no longer make much sense for the product line.
3) we can assume that by Fall 2011 iPad 2 supply demand will be in balance -- with adequate supply for the holiday season
4) if done properly, a Fall addition to the iPad line at the upper end should have little effect on the holiday buying of the iPad 2 -- it could actually help sales of the iPad 2. Price, availability, features are all part of this as well as not obsolescing or reducing the appeal of the iPad 2. It is a classic marketing problem -- Apple should be able to do this.
5) as some others have mentioned, there are some "power" enhancements needed for more specialized uses of an iPad -- in Photo Editing, AV Post Processing, CAD, Medicine, Education, Gaming, etc. While these uses can justify a more expensive iPad, "normal" user requirements are better met by a less-expensive main-stream iPad -- the iPad 2.
We have 3 iPad 2s and 3 iPad 1s -- I bought a referb iPad 1 at the same time I ordered the iPad 2s.
I don't think of the iPad 1 as a second-class citizen.
I will buy at least 1 of the next version of iPad -- but do not expect to feel either the iPad 1s or iPad 2s will be obsolete.
I think we will be better served over a 2-3 year period with iPads of varying ages than with traditional computers (any form factor) of varying ages -- and will have saved an estimated $3,000-$4,000 in accessories, software, batteries, etc.
I want to throw this final item in just to stir the pot.
Within the next month or 2 Apple is expected to release "jaw-dropping" versions of its "Pro" apps: Final Cut Studio and Logic. These apps currently have very complex, specialized (read non-Apple) UIs. They seem to "cry out" for a simplified, intuitive, multitouch UI. An iPad as a graphics tablet or control surface could greatly enhance these products.
The Mac Pro Apps use special Apple ProRes codecs to efficiently process and manipulate high-quality video, The codecs were ported to iOS 4.3... but no iOS apps use them...
The iPad 2 demos of GarageBand and iMovie point the way for A/V editing and production using a touch interface. Randy Ubillos, who did the iPad 2 iMove demo is the originator of what was later to become Final Cut.
Call me crazy, but Apple could release a specialty iPad device, with ThunderBolt, as a multitouch UI accessory for these new Pro Mac apps -- and it could be tied to a release cycle independent from the "traditional" iPad line.
.
You still haven't presented a good reason other than you think it's a good time. Not only is that not enough, but you haven't addressed the real, hard reasons why it isn't a good idea. It seems as though no one here who wants this to come out in September wants to deal with these issues.
I work with FCS, and I've worked with it from the beginning. It's got a great UI, one of the best. It's way too complex to be used with fingers. It would need to be totally reworked from the ground up, and I doubt editors would accept it. We all use specialized keyboards with shortcuts. Right now, I can't even imagine how this could be ported over to multitouch. It would also need a tablet with a much larger screen, and much more powerful processing. It would also need large fast external storage, something that Apple, so far isn't allowing.
Imagining all this is nice, but it's years away, if ever.
I'm thinking that there needs to be a standard protocol for cloud computing. We are already hobbled with different disk based formats be it HFS+ NTFS or Unix file systems. The cloud needs to be a universal file system which of course necessitates iOS having one.
Why does it matter what the underlying file system is? Already when looking at a hard disk you can't tell if it's NTFS, HFS+, Fat32, etc.
I do think the cloud hard disk needs to handle syncing well - multiple versions, deleted files etc. That's some difficult background processes to get right.
Microsoft and Apple and Google don't need to use the same systems in any way.
I'm thinking that there needs to be a standard protocol for cloud computing. We are already hobbled with different disk based formats be it HFS+ NTFS or Unix file systems. The cloud needs to be a universal file system which of course necessitates iOS having one.
The problem with "cloud" computing is that every company has their own standards and implementations. Companies that go with one can't easily move to another. Until there is a standard, it will be a fragmented industry. And then, there will be big winners and big losers.
I think that the best Apple can do is something like Dropbox. That's not even close to what cloud computing means, it's just a more sophisticated version of web based storage and retrieval, something that's been around in one form or another for ages.
Why does it matter what the underlying file system is? Already when looking at a hard disk you can't tell if it's NTFS, HFS+, Fat32, etc.
I do think the cloud hard disk needs to handle syncing well - multiple versions, deleted files etc. That's some difficult background processes to get right.
Microsoft and Apple and Google don't need to use the same systems in any way.
If it's really cloud based, it would have to be transparent. You should be able to mix your stuff no matter where you had it, and you shouldn't need many accounts and passwords to do so. Right now, that's impossible.
I work with FCS, and I've worked with it from the beginning. It's got a great UI, one of the best. It's way too complex to be used with fingers. It would need to be totally reworked from the ground up, and I doubt editors would accept it. We all use specialized keyboards with shortcuts. Right now, I can't even imagine how this could be ported over to multitouch. It would also need a tablet with a much larger screen, and much more powerful processing. It would also need large fast external storage, something that Apple, so far isn't allowing.
I agree with the rest of what you are saying, Melgross, however on this (multi-touch and FCS) I think it's more a case of sooner rather than later. And an iPad wouldn't need to be the engine for FCS, but rather the steering wheel.
the iPhone 4G will not come with iOS 5, but rather iOS 4.5
An iPad as a graphics tablet or control surface could greatly enhance these products.
There are already third party apps out there which control Logic, or any other DAW out there. Apple may or may not choose to come out with their own app, but here's a couple that are available: First pic is AC-7, second pic is TouchOsc.
But you're not addressing any major matters such as fragmentation, new SoC, R&D lag time, manufacturing line development, etc.
All of this must be addressed first. Of course, there will be more people unhappy that Apple came out with a new model so soon than people who will be happy about it.
As to fragmentation -- Apple should take care that any enhancement to the line is a compiatible superset of the iPad and iPhone -- ala the iPhone and iPad.
The CPU and GPU are variants of current designs -- so the R&D should be a continuation of the A5 design.
I like to think that Apple has several teams working concurrently: current product version; next product version; next product version + 1. The teams have some common management and technicians. I believe they should be near completion of quad quad SoC be manufactured (in lower quantity) in Tiwan and/or Texas.
That makes no sense, and would be a very bad marketing step.
It would be a terrible step for Apple, and anybody who is arguing for a retina display is only doing so for their own selfish reasons. These people can't possibly have any business or marketing sense.
Apple would piss off and alienate tens of millions of customers and it would be a terrible business strategy on their part. Apple is not in it for a quick buck like some other companies are. Apple wouldn't resort to such shady practices. Can you imagine tens of millions of customers who just bought an iPad2 and immediately after, a new improved ,magical iPad comes along?
Resorting to quicker product refreshes would also hurt Apple sales as more people would skip over multiple refreshes before they upgraded. There is not a single good reason for Apple releasing an iPad3 in the fall, but there are plenty of good reasons for why it would be a terrible mistake for them.
I agree the iPhone 4 takes remarkably good photographs...for a phone. Good enough for most people probably not to need a point and shoot. But you chose the word 'stunning', not me. Landscape photography requires superb glass and a reasonably-sized sensor to get 'stunning', something no tablet will ever have. It's not important though, I see your point. Photographs on a double-res iPad would be joyous. That said, I don't see the iPad ever being an ideal device for taking pictures. I think Apple got it spot on to make the cameras FaceTime-ready rather than reaching for the stars with the specs without justification.
I hope you get your iPad3, but I don't see it happening and I think when you can't come up with a 'single good reason' for doing something, that's usually the time when you decide not to do that thing :P Especially when it costs millions of dollars to do it!
No, I long ago came up with a very good reason for them to do a higher-res iPad, just not one I can convince Mel Gross with, at least for the near term, as in September. That reason would be: the iPhone 4 screen, and even the iPod touch screen, make the iPad look second-rate. That cannot stand for the likes of Jobs, Ive, and whoever else at Apple is a fanatic about making the best possible thing.
The 'stunning' part I will stand by, but so qualified to say that the average visually sensitized Apple fan will be knocked out. Maybe not so much the professional photographer, whose standards will not allow overlooking the tiny lens.
About landscape, you are completely right to dismiss that on the basis of the lens and sensor. It would be a very particular kind of scene and lighting to pull off a good shot. What I had in mind with that was composition. Many see the form of the iPad as too awkward to handle. I see its rectangular 'slabness' as a potential advantage, both in stability and in framing a scene in that big window of a screen.
Change the form of the tool and the kind of work you do changes too. Unpredictable how it will be used in any detail, really.
No, I long ago came up with a very good reason for them to do a higher-res iPad, just not one I can convince Mel Gross with, at least for the near term, as in September. That reason would be: the iPhone 4 screen, and even the iPod touch screen, make the iPad look second-rate. That cannot stand for the likes of Jobs, Ive, and whoever else at Apple is a fanatic about making the best possible thing.
The 'stunning' part I will stand by, but so qualified to say that the average visually sensitized Apple fan will be knocked out. Maybe not so much the professional photographer, whose standards will not allow overlooking the tiny lens.
About landscape, you are completely right to dismiss that on the basis of the lens and sensor. It would be a very particular kind of scene and lighting to pull off a good shot. What I had in mind with that was composition. Many see the form of the iPad as too awkward to handle. I see its rectangular 'slabness' as a potential advantage, both in stability and in framing a scene in that big window of a screen.
Change the form of the tool and the kind of work you do changes too. Unpredictable how it will be used in any detail, really.
That?s ?a? reason, it?s not a good reason. You can?t measure the pixel density and assume that a display 8x the size is just as easy to produce and can work with the same internal HW. In fact, you be assured that the A4 in the first iPad is pushing more pixels than the A4 in the iPhone/iPod Touch.
You still haven't presented a good reason other than you think it's a good time. Not only is that not enough, but you haven't addressed the real, hard reasons why it isn't a good idea. It seems as though no one here who wants this to come out in September wants to deal with these issues.
I work with FCS, and I've worked with it from the beginning. It's got a great UI, one of the best. It's way too complex to be used with fingers. It would need to be totally reworked from the ground up, and I doubt editors would accept it. We all use specialized keyboards with shortcuts. Right now, I can't even imagine how this could be ported over to multitouch. It would also need a tablet with a much larger screen, and much more powerful processing. It would also need large fast external storage, something that Apple, so far isn't allowing.
Imagining all this is nice, but it's years away, if ever.
My simplest answer is that Apple is in a position to dominate the tablet market (post pc industry) for years to come.
Their strategy should be to control that market by providing attractive, affordable solutions that are only available from Apple.
Their tactics should be to gain and maintain the high ground before the competition can muddy the waters -- the sooner, the better!
As to FCS -- we differ on the UI.
.
I agree with the rest of what you are saying, Melgross, however on this (multi-touch and FCS) I think it's more a case of sooner rather than later. And an iPad wouldn't need to be the engine for FCS, but rather the steering wheel.
Well, we would have to examine why Apple would be doing this. Unlike as with consumer equipment, pros are a very conservative crowd. It takes along time to learn a complex program, much less an entire suite. Look how long it's taken Apple to come out with the major upgrade we'll be seeing in April. How long would it take for them to entirely rework the suite for multitouch? Years! And what incentive would they have? It's already got a good thirds of the pro market, maybe more.
And then there's the Mac Pro, which I use with it. How would they get this to work with a tablet? Motion needs a very hefty machine, including a good graphics card. I can't wait to get a 6970.
If they do this at all, it will be years before it's practical.
If you're just talking about it as a controller, that's different.
My simplest answer is that Apple is in a position to dominate the tablet market (post pc industry) for years to come.
Their strategy should be to control that market by providing attractive, affordable solutions that are only available from Apple.
Their tactics should be to gain and maintain the high ground before the competition can muddy the waters -- the sooner, the better!
As to FCS -- we differ on the UI.
.
The problem with all this wishful thinking is that it?s beyond the scope of analysis and reasoning. If having a 2048x1536 display would be so great and Apple can simply will it into existence then why doesn?t the iPad 2 have it?
The problem with all this wishful thinking is that it?s beyond the scope of analysis and reasoning. If having a 2048x1536 display would be so great and Apple can simply will it into existence then why doesn?t the iPad 2 have it?
I didn't say that -- retina iPad is only 1 feature -- one step on the path forward.
I do believe that Apple knows where it is going with this in the next 3 years.
The iPad 2 is not the end game -- only a small step for ConsumerKind!
.
I didn't say that -- retina iPad is only 1 feature -- one step on the path forward.
I do believe that Apple knows where it is going with this in the next 3 years.
The iPad 2 is not the end game -- only a small step for ConsumerKind!
.
That’s pretty much what all the iPad 3 in 2011 rumours are about. I don’t recall reading anything else that said anything different on the subject, but my apologies for misinterpreting your words.
What else would you expect for an iPad 3 for 2011? Why not release it as the iPad 2? Why not wait a few months to release it as the 2012 iPad? I certainly don’t think Apple will be suffering from a plethora of competing tablets anytime this year. People aren’t buying the iPad because it’s slightly cheaper than some other tablet on the market.
Of course it’s a step, the next one will be iPad 3, but I think a yearly step is most likely not a 6 month step. Note that I offered arguments as to why Apple would want to do this, but think they won’t. I don’t get why rational thoughts are being pushed to the side for desire for an iPad 3. Take Flaneur’s comment of an 8x larger display has a lower pixel density so Apple will have to update it this year. I simply don’t see how that makes sense.
As to fragmentation -- Apple should take care that any enhancement to the line is a compiatible superset of the iPad and iPhone -- ala the iPhone and iPad.
The CPU and GPU are variants of current designs -- so the R&D should be a continuation of the A5 design.
I like to think that Apple has several teams working concurrently: current product version; next product version; next product version + 1. The teams have some common management and technicians. I believe they should be near completion of quad quad SoC be manufactured (in lower quantity) in Tiwan and/or Texas.
They can't do much about the processors until both ARM and Imagination come out with new designs. Apple's CPU is just a customized version of an ARM standard design which they license. The imagination gpu is Imagination's design. Until the next designs come out, there isn't much Apple or other companies can do. Nvidia has shown a 4 core version, but that's all they've done so far is to show it. September is just 6 months away. Apple would be rushed to make a major design effort and go to manufacturing with all the production lines already running at max.
I have no doubt they're working on two generations of devices at once, and have a third they're just sketching out. But the second won't be near finishing until shortly before production begins, a month or so before release. We know Apple runs lean teams. Whether they have enough engineers to come this close to completion of the second design shortly after release of the first is questionable. Whether they would want to is an additional question.
If they've got two models that are current at the same time, and one has a much higher Rez and better performance, fragmentation is something that has happened. It will be out of their hands once developers, both hardware and software get to it.
We can see that from some games that are out now. Real Racing 2 will have true 1080p output from the iPad 2. And it will use the iPad as a controller. How cool is that? Can't be done on the iPad 1. But that the olde model. What would happen if it were a current one?
People would be ticked, at the least. They understand that older models don't get the best, but if they're current, it's different. I don't think people would be happy.
There are already third party apps out there which control Logic, or any other DAW out there. Apple may or may not choose to come out with their own app, but here's a couple that are available: First pic is AC-7, second pic is TouchOsc.
Good to know that... i do not use logic personally, but have a singer/composer friend who has been graduating from GB to Logic to create her debut CD/DVD.
I will send this to her.
I hope to see some similar apps for FCS -- maybe a nodes and noodles interface ala Shake.
Because of the large video files, a high-speed connection between the iPad and the Mac would, be adnantageous -- ThunderBolt, for example.
.
No, I long ago came up with a very good reason for them to do a higher-res iPad, just not one I can convince Mel Gross with, at least for the near term, as in September. That reason would be: the iPhone 4 screen, and even the iPod touch screen, make the iPad look second-rate. That cannot stand for the likes of Jobs, Ive, and whoever else at Apple is a fanatic about making the best possible thing.
The 'stunning' part I will stand by, but so qualified to say that the average visually sensitized Apple fan will be knocked out. Maybe not so much the professional photographer, whose standards will not allow overlooking the tiny lens.
About landscape, you are completely right to dismiss that on the basis of the lens and sensor. It would be a very particular kind of scene and lighting to pull off a good shot. What I had in mind with that was composition. Many see the form of the iPad as too awkward to handle. I see its rectangular 'slabness' as a potential advantage, both in stability and in framing a scene in that big window of a screen.
Change the form of the tool and the kind of work you do changes too. Unpredictable how it will be used in any detail, really.
If what you are saying were true, then people wouldn't be standing in lines to buy one. They would be bitching about how bad the display is. But actually, the display is great. The new one is even better than the old. For one, it's brighter. It's also warmer. My biggest gripe about the old one was that my meter measured it as 7,200k. The new one is closer to the standard 6,500k, about 6,300k. It's noticeable immediately. The blacks are also better due to the warmth. The old one's blacks were weaker.
While I have no argument as to your interest in using this to take photos, very few people will be using it that way. You can use Photosnitch to wirelessly move photos from your camera to your iPad. You can view them as they come to the screen, in RAW, and magnify them up to 100%. you can organize them and do most everything except edit, though they're working on that. There are other apps to let you do somewhat similar things such as control your camera from your iPhone or iPad.
That seems to be a much better use of this device then actually taking pictures with it. I've got a Canon 5DmkII. It's a pretty good camera, but a colleague and I have been beta testing Leaf backs since they first came out. If I were a landscape photog. I would much rather use one of those as my friend does. Earlier, last year, we tested their new 80MP back. Now, THAT'S a landscape back.