My prediction ... Next year the ipad 3 will perhaps come with a slightly higher DPI etc.
Why do you think that? I would say that there's absolutely no point increasing the DPI unless it is increased substantially, and ideally doubled. Because of the iPhone, iOS developers are already expected to supply bitmaps in high and low DPI.
If Apple added an intervening screen that was just slightly higher than the existing low DPI iPad, then either developers would have to add yet another copy of every bitmap, icons would all slightly shrink or there would be significant aliasing.
If they double DPI they get to make 'retina' claims, they avoid adding significant extra work for iOS devs and they compete with the high resolution models that Samsung have already announced they intend to ship this year.
Quote:
But I could see perhaps Apple making their North/South American supply here while the rest stays in Asia
It would be pointless making south american supply in north america, given the tariff situation in south america. That is clearly what the Brazilian assembly plant is intended for.
I think the critical question of whether or not there will be a separate iPad HD line is one of costs, and to some extent, how aggressively Apple wants to continue to build out the user base.
The move to a double-resolution display in an iPad should certainly not be considered to be a lateral move. If I had to guess, I'd bet that because the screens were so much smaller, Apple was able to justify not raising the price of the iPhone4 when they introduced the Retina Display last year- but I'd warn against making that assumption for 2x iPad displays.
I'd wager a screen of that size with that resolution is going to be much more difficult and expensive to produce in large quantities. Is ANYONE making that resolution at that size right now? The point being that if there is a substantial ADDED component cost to the new display that cannot fit into the current iPad's price structure, then Apple may well decide to produce an iPad HD for those who might be willing to pay a $100 premium for the privilege. Some people don't want to hear it, but sometimes new technologies do cost more money.
The alternative scenario is that Apple is able to incorporate a Retina Display into the iPad without raising the price. If this were the case, I'd wonder if they wouldn't continue to sell iPad2s with the current screen at $100 less. If the entry level for this device goes from $499 to $399 [and I'd bet a lot of people won't care about the screen], then Apple stands to gain huge in the breadth of their potential market.
...because the 7" wannabe iPads are such runaway hits?
There's no point to a 7" iPad. Yet the Touch needs a re-think. Being as the Touch really isn't a smartphone, why force a smartphone form factor onto it.
If Apple were being honest they'd admit that the current screen on the Touch is a compromise that makes sense with a smartphone and not for a pocketable computer.
I think it reasonable to argue that one could increase the size of the Touch without preventing it from being pocketable. That larger screen would bring a lot of gains for what the device is used, i.e. gaming, surfing, e-reading, etc. I can see the point to keeping smartphones from getting too big for working well as a phone because, well, they're phones. Yet the Touch isn't a phone so why act if it is one. Let the iPhone take whatever form makes sense for a smartphone and let the Touch take whatever form makes sense for a pocketable computer. Apple is selling enough of both to justify creating two distinct products. Even if the Touch was only modestly larger, like for instance the iPhone checking in at 4 inches and the Touch 4.7 inches, or something along those lines, the larger screen would be welcome.
Down the road, a 4.7-inch Touch would provide an option to compete with the inevitably cheap tablets that are sure to flood the market. You know the cheap stuff is coming. It always does. Given a choice between poor quality with a larger screen or a larger Touch, a lot would gravitate towards the Touch.
Size has nothing to do with the failures in the market place at the moment. Using your logic the iPod Touch would be a failure. It would be far better to wake up to the reality that iPad is awfully big for some uses.
Sigh - size absolutely is relevant. 7" tablets exist nit because they are a good form factor but because the screen is the most expensive component in a tablet. Vendors push them because it's the only way they can get near Apples's features and price.
So as any good marketer knows, tout your weakness as a strength and Bam! Problem solved!
For things where the iPad is too big, there is the iPod Touch. Looking for some other form factor device any time soon is going to be pretty fruitless. I'm not saying they will never do it. I just don't expect it for at least another couple of years.
First, they don't need it. Second, the great strength of iOS is the simplicity and predictability of the platform. A platform that is still growing and will be for some time. Now is not the time to muddy the waters with yet another form factor.
Hey! Apple Insider kicks up the hysteria a notch by calling it an actual, "iPad 3" Everyone else is going with, "iPad HD". What a country! (Yes, an obscure Yakov reference).
There's no point to a 7" iPad. Yet the Touch needs a re-think. Being as the Touch really isn't a smartphone, why force a smartphone form factor onto it.
Because, as an iPod, it needs to be pocketable.
And with the classic being killed off, the touch's form factor is demanded of it.
Quote:
If Apple were being honest they'd admit that the current screen on the Touch is a compromise that makes sense with a smartphone and not for a pocketable computer.
That and IT'S AN IPOD.
Quote:
4.7 inches
That's not pocketable at all. Not even Android phones get that big. And there's a reason for that.
Quote:
Given a choice between poor quality with a larger screen or a larger Touch, a lot would gravitate towards the Touch.
Given the choice between poor quality with a 4.5" screen or a 3.5" iPhone, people keep choosing the iPhone.
Wonder why. Don't think it has much to do with the size of the screen.
If they double DPI they get to make 'retina' claims, they avoid adding significant extra work for iOS devs and they compete with the high resolution models that Samsung have already announced they intend to ship this year.
Well images can scale down. You could have any resolution from 1.0 to 2.0 working with previously doubled images ( proportions being the same).
Yeah, I was in that secret trilateral WS meeting where guys with cigars said "we have to stop this iOS"... it's priority #1 and all that you hear on the street.
Your fanboi nonsense comment is beyond Baloney and three levels smellier than bull manure...
Then I'm sure if it comes out you're one of those loser fanbois that screams "I knew it all along... Apple magical innovation all the way for the win!"
Pathetic
This year, nada, zilch.
Now, the shysters are spouting new iPad. Come february, it will be production problems will push iPad 3 to June. They did it this year. On feb 22, bloomberg came out with news that production problems will push iPad 2 to June. On feb 23, invitations to the iPad 2 release were being sent out.
I think the critical question of whether or not there will be a separate iPad HD line is one of costs, and to some extent, how aggressively Apple wants to continue to build out the user base.
The move to a double-resolution display in an iPad should certainly not be considered to be a lateral move. If I had to guess, I'd bet that because the screens were so much smaller, Apple was able to justify not raising the price of the iPhone4 when they introduced the Retina Display last year- but I'd warn against making that assumption for 2x iPad displays.
I'd wager a screen of that size with that resolution is going to be much more difficult and expensive to produce in large quantities. Is ANYONE making that resolution at that size right now? The point being that if there is a substantial ADDED component cost to the new display that cannot fit into the current iPad's price structure, then Apple may well decide to produce an iPad HD for those who might be willing to pay a $100 premium for the privilege. Some people don't want to hear it, but sometimes new technologies do cost more money.
The alternative scenario is that Apple is able to incorporate a Retina Display into the iPad without raising the price. If this were the case, I'd wonder if they wouldn't continue to sell iPad2s with the current screen at $100 less. If the entry level for this device goes from $499 to $399 [and I'd bet a lot of people won't care about the screen], then Apple stands to gain huge in the breadth of their potential market.
If Apple tries to market a more expensive iPad, the cost goes even higher. The reason is that we're talking about far fewer units which means the cost per unit increases that much more. You're being wildly optimistic in thinking Apple could deliver an iPad Plus for only $100 more. The cost would be much higher because such a device would sell in the thousands, not the millions we're seeing with the current iPad. And what of software development? After all, a small group of consumers would be in the market for software for the much higher resolution and that would make developing such software far less appealing. It's not a simple matter of ordering a bunch of HD screens and marketing the new device as an iPad +.
It's been suggested that the iPhone-4S rumours have arisen because iPhone-5 test phones were created that used modified iPhone-4 shells.
As much as I'd love to see Apple expand its line, I'm only interested in the top end model anyway as a consumer, so if this were true (and it'd make sense after last time's mishap with design), I'd be just as happy. Really I just want a redesigned iPhone 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 11thIndian
My only contradition would be that if the Air, Mini, and MacPro see revs shortly after Lion, I doubt we'll see any more Mac updates until next year. They'll have run the whole product line in 2011, and I don't think there's another chipset to move to yet.
I agree, but I'd like to see the Macbook as well as the Air, Mini and Mac Pro updated before the Fall and if not - they're likely to come during the Fall. Well, we know Airs are just around the corner but as for the rest... who knows...
I agree, but I'd like to see the Macbook as well as the Air, Mini and Mac Pro updated before the Fall and if not - they're likely to come during the Fall. Well, we know Airs are just around the corner but as for the rest... who knows...
The Mac Pro can't be, but the others certainly can/probably will.
And with the classic being killed off, the touch's form factor is demanded of it.
That and IT'S AN IPOD.
That's not pocketable at all. Not even Android phones get that big. And there's a reason for that.
Given the choice between poor quality with a 4.5" screen or a 3.5" iPhone, people keep choosing the iPhone.
Wonder why. Don't think it has much to do with the size of the screen.
Sorry, I guess I should have said 4.5 inches because that extra .2 inches, evidently, is a dealbreaker. I don't think you have any idea how small a sub-five-inch device is. We're talking screen diagonal measure, not the dimensions of the device overall.
If Apple tries to market a more expensive iPad, the cost goes even higher. The reason is that we're talking about far fewer units which means the cost per unit increases that much more. You're being wildly optimistic in thinking Apple could deliver an iPad Plus for only $100 more. The cost would be much higher because such a device would sell in the thousands, not the millions we're seeing with the current iPad.
It depends how different the assembly is for such an iPad-HD compared to the regular one. They already make many different models of iPad, but they're just variants on a basic design so it's not decreasing margins much.
The question comes down to the cost of the screen, if it added no more than the 3G connectivity then I don't think it would be a big problem at all, indeed I expect it would immediately become the top selling model.
Software development is less of an issue, so long as the screen is double the resolution then correctly written universal apps should just work unmodified. iPad only apps would just need double resolution bitmaps provided to benefit, but would display fine even without them.
Hey! Apple Insider kicks up the hysteria a notch by calling it an actual, "iPad 3" Everyone else is going with, "iPad HD". What a country! (Yes, an obscure Yakov reference).
Sorry, I guess I should have said 4.5 inches because that extra .2 inches, evidently, is a dealbreaker. I don't think you have any idea how small a sub-five-inch device is. We're talking screen diagonal measure, not the dimensions of the device overall.
I know exactly how large they are. Not everyone has pockets the size of Wisconsin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGirl
I have always wanted a iPad pro.
So buy an iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard or a MacBook Air.
This Ipad 3 HD will not drop this year. They are using there billions of dollars to stock pile pre-made ipad 3's this time for the feb launch like last year. This time they figure if they build them for 6 months before launch they will meet the insane demand this time out of the gates.
That's absurd. There's no way they would be stockpiling a product for 8 months before release. If they were producing them today, they would certainly want to get them to market before Christmas - and possibly for back to school.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
An iPad HD would have a superior crushing effect on the competition during the holiday shopping season. Beyond that there is lots of room in Apples line up for more iOS devices.
I don't know if the technology is there yet, but if it is, it might be of interest to some people.
However, I'm not sure it would be as big a deal as some tech geeks think. The entire point of the iPad line is 'simple, elegant, reliable, capable'. Adding a HD screen as an option goes against that. It doesn't really improve any of those things, except (maybe) capability. What would and HD iPad do that a regular one wouldn't? Not a heck of a lot. In fact, other than the tiny number of people who do CAD and/or photo editing on the iPad, it's not clear that there's any advantage. And given that you need more RAM and a heftier processor (or else you have to give up performance if you keep the same processor), it might actually be a disadvantage. Apple doesn't like differentiating products purely on specs.
That said, I think there IS a potential market for an iPad PRO. Apple is far more likely to differentiate the product by its intended market than its specs. They could offer an iPad pro with an HD screen targeted at graphics users, CAD users, serious action gamers, people doing text-intensive work, and so on. Because it's used by pros rather than casual users, the shorter battery life that you might get from the higher density screen, faster processor, and greater RAM might be acceptable (pro users are less likely to be operating for long periods away from a power source).
Plus, that enables them to obtain higher margins. A quad core processor doesn't cost much more than a dual core and doubling the RAM wouldn't be horribly expensive. But most of the components remain the same (case, backlight, battery, motherboard, etc), so the total cost might only go up 10% or so while the selling price would probably go up 20-30%.
Size has nothing to do with the failures in the market place at the moment. Using your logic the iPod Touch would be a failure. It would be far better to wake up to the reality that iPad is awfully big for some uses.
I think your desire to beat somebody over the head has got the better of you. You know well that both 3.5" devices (iPod touch) and 10" devices selling well can hardly be taken as an indicator that any intermediate size will also sell well. And you also know well that not all sizes will be prove to be practical and popular in the long run. Thus why claim that size has nothing to do with success? I can only guess, but I would assume that you meant to say that size had less to do with the success of the 7" tablets than the previous poster implied.
But the words 'has less to do' simply weren't a big enough stick, so you used 'nothing to do', which charitably could be called overstating the facts or just a flat out lie (but I guess I lie that is so obviously a lie, isn't really a lie but just a rhetorical tool, though an unpleasant and brutish tool).
My prediction - iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S/Lite and no new iPod Touch or iPad.
Why would Apple not update the iPod touch to the iPhone 5 internals? It has done so now for four years and not doing so just headaches in terms of OS and app compatibility.
It depends how different the assembly is for such an iPad-HD compared to the regular one. They already make many different models of iPad, but they're just variants on a basic design so it's not decreasing margins much.
Margins are not the issue, nor is ease of assembly. Apple has enough design experience and experience working with their partners to work through assembly problems. Besides, who cares if it takes 6 minutes to assemble instead of 4 when you're paying $10 a day?
The real issue is going to be marketing. EVERYTHING is about marketing with Apple. I don't see them selling a product solely on the basis of one component having greater specs. Rather, they will sell it on the basis of the entire package.
Look at the iPhone 4. Did they sell the phone because of the screen specs? Probably a few. But the majority were probably sold on the basis of the entire system's capability. Faster processor, more RAM, greater battery life, gorgeous screen, etc. The focus was on the PRODUCT, not the specs. If you focus on the specs, you make it easy for a competitor to produce a crappy product which happens to have a better spec - and beat you at your game.
It's not like Apple (or any good marketing company) to try to sell their system on the basis of a single specification. Rather, they'll focus on the entire package. Can I see an iPad HD added to the line to sell alongside the regular iPad? Yes (assuming the technology is available which hasn't yet been proven). But it almost certainly won't be sold on the basis of the screen alone. It will be sold on the basis of the entire capability of the device and will focus on the capabilities, not the specs. Thus, I see 'iPad Pro' as being far more likely than 'iPad HD'.
Comments
My prediction ... Next year the ipad 3 will perhaps come with a slightly higher DPI etc.
Why do you think that? I would say that there's absolutely no point increasing the DPI unless it is increased substantially, and ideally doubled. Because of the iPhone, iOS developers are already expected to supply bitmaps in high and low DPI.
If Apple added an intervening screen that was just slightly higher than the existing low DPI iPad, then either developers would have to add yet another copy of every bitmap, icons would all slightly shrink or there would be significant aliasing.
If they double DPI they get to make 'retina' claims, they avoid adding significant extra work for iOS devs and they compete with the high resolution models that Samsung have already announced they intend to ship this year.
But I could see perhaps Apple making their North/South American supply here while the rest stays in Asia
It would be pointless making south american supply in north america, given the tariff situation in south america. That is clearly what the Brazilian assembly plant is intended for.
The move to a double-resolution display in an iPad should certainly not be considered to be a lateral move. If I had to guess, I'd bet that because the screens were so much smaller, Apple was able to justify not raising the price of the iPhone4 when they introduced the Retina Display last year- but I'd warn against making that assumption for 2x iPad displays.
I'd wager a screen of that size with that resolution is going to be much more difficult and expensive to produce in large quantities. Is ANYONE making that resolution at that size right now? The point being that if there is a substantial ADDED component cost to the new display that cannot fit into the current iPad's price structure, then Apple may well decide to produce an iPad HD for those who might be willing to pay a $100 premium for the privilege. Some people don't want to hear it, but sometimes new technologies do cost more money.
The alternative scenario is that Apple is able to incorporate a Retina Display into the iPad without raising the price. If this were the case, I'd wonder if they wouldn't continue to sell iPad2s with the current screen at $100 less. If the entry level for this device goes from $499 to $399 [and I'd bet a lot of people won't care about the screen], then Apple stands to gain huge in the breadth of their potential market.
...because the 7" wannabe iPads are such runaway hits?
There's no point to a 7" iPad. Yet the Touch needs a re-think. Being as the Touch really isn't a smartphone, why force a smartphone form factor onto it.
If Apple were being honest they'd admit that the current screen on the Touch is a compromise that makes sense with a smartphone and not for a pocketable computer.
I think it reasonable to argue that one could increase the size of the Touch without preventing it from being pocketable. That larger screen would bring a lot of gains for what the device is used, i.e. gaming, surfing, e-reading, etc. I can see the point to keeping smartphones from getting too big for working well as a phone because, well, they're phones. Yet the Touch isn't a phone so why act if it is one. Let the iPhone take whatever form makes sense for a smartphone and let the Touch take whatever form makes sense for a pocketable computer. Apple is selling enough of both to justify creating two distinct products. Even if the Touch was only modestly larger, like for instance the iPhone checking in at 4 inches and the Touch 4.7 inches, or something along those lines, the larger screen would be welcome.
Down the road, a 4.7-inch Touch would provide an option to compete with the inevitably cheap tablets that are sure to flood the market. You know the cheap stuff is coming. It always does. Given a choice between poor quality with a larger screen or a larger Touch, a lot would gravitate towards the Touch.
Size has nothing to do with the failures in the market place at the moment. Using your logic the iPod Touch would be a failure. It would be far better to wake up to the reality that iPad is awfully big for some uses.
Sigh - size absolutely is relevant. 7" tablets exist nit because they are a good form factor but because the screen is the most expensive component in a tablet. Vendors push them because it's the only way they can get near Apples's features and price.
So as any good marketer knows, tout your weakness as a strength and Bam! Problem solved!
For things where the iPad is too big, there is the iPod Touch. Looking for some other form factor device any time soon is going to be pretty fruitless. I'm not saying they will never do it. I just don't expect it for at least another couple of years.
First, they don't need it. Second, the great strength of iOS is the simplicity and predictability of the platform. A platform that is still growing and will be for some time. Now is not the time to muddy the waters with yet another form factor.
There's no point to a 7" iPad. Yet the Touch needs a re-think. Being as the Touch really isn't a smartphone, why force a smartphone form factor onto it.
Because, as an iPod, it needs to be pocketable.
And with the classic being killed off, the touch's form factor is demanded of it.
If Apple were being honest they'd admit that the current screen on the Touch is a compromise that makes sense with a smartphone and not for a pocketable computer.
That and IT'S AN IPOD.
4.7 inches
That's not pocketable at all. Not even Android phones get that big. And there's a reason for that.
Given a choice between poor quality with a larger screen or a larger Touch, a lot would gravitate towards the Touch.
Given the choice between poor quality with a 4.5" screen or a 3.5" iPhone, people keep choosing the iPhone.
Wonder why. Don't think it has much to do with the size of the screen.
If they double DPI they get to make 'retina' claims, they avoid adding significant extra work for iOS devs and they compete with the high resolution models that Samsung have already announced they intend to ship this year.
Well images can scale down. You could have any resolution from 1.0 to 2.0 working with previously doubled images ( proportions being the same).
Yeah, I was in that secret trilateral WS meeting where guys with cigars said "we have to stop this iOS"... it's priority #1 and all that you hear on the street.
Your fanboi nonsense comment is beyond Baloney and three levels smellier than bull manure...
Then I'm sure if it comes out you're one of those loser fanbois that screams "I knew it all along... Apple magical innovation all the way for the win!"
Pathetic
This year, nada, zilch.
Now, the shysters are spouting new iPad. Come february, it will be production problems will push iPad 3 to June. They did it this year. On feb 22, bloomberg came out with news that production problems will push iPad 2 to June. On feb 23, invitations to the iPad 2 release were being sent out.
I think the critical question of whether or not there will be a separate iPad HD line is one of costs, and to some extent, how aggressively Apple wants to continue to build out the user base.
The move to a double-resolution display in an iPad should certainly not be considered to be a lateral move. If I had to guess, I'd bet that because the screens were so much smaller, Apple was able to justify not raising the price of the iPhone4 when they introduced the Retina Display last year- but I'd warn against making that assumption for 2x iPad displays.
I'd wager a screen of that size with that resolution is going to be much more difficult and expensive to produce in large quantities. Is ANYONE making that resolution at that size right now? The point being that if there is a substantial ADDED component cost to the new display that cannot fit into the current iPad's price structure, then Apple may well decide to produce an iPad HD for those who might be willing to pay a $100 premium for the privilege. Some people don't want to hear it, but sometimes new technologies do cost more money.
The alternative scenario is that Apple is able to incorporate a Retina Display into the iPad without raising the price. If this were the case, I'd wonder if they wouldn't continue to sell iPad2s with the current screen at $100 less. If the entry level for this device goes from $499 to $399 [and I'd bet a lot of people won't care about the screen], then Apple stands to gain huge in the breadth of their potential market.
If Apple tries to market a more expensive iPad, the cost goes even higher. The reason is that we're talking about far fewer units which means the cost per unit increases that much more. You're being wildly optimistic in thinking Apple could deliver an iPad Plus for only $100 more. The cost would be much higher because such a device would sell in the thousands, not the millions we're seeing with the current iPad. And what of software development? After all, a small group of consumers would be in the market for software for the much higher resolution and that would make developing such software far less appealing. It's not a simple matter of ordering a bunch of HD screens and marketing the new device as an iPad +.
It's been suggested that the iPhone-4S rumours have arisen because iPhone-5 test phones were created that used modified iPhone-4 shells.
As much as I'd love to see Apple expand its line, I'm only interested in the top end model anyway as a consumer, so if this were true (and it'd make sense after last time's mishap with design), I'd be just as happy. Really I just want a redesigned iPhone 5.
My only contradition would be that if the Air, Mini, and MacPro see revs shortly after Lion, I doubt we'll see any more Mac updates until next year. They'll have run the whole product line in 2011, and I don't think there's another chipset to move to yet.
I agree, but I'd like to see the Macbook as well as the Air, Mini and Mac Pro updated before the Fall and if not - they're likely to come during the Fall. Well, we know Airs are just around the corner but as for the rest... who knows...
I agree, but I'd like to see the Macbook as well as the Air, Mini and Mac Pro updated before the Fall and if not - they're likely to come during the Fall. Well, we know Airs are just around the corner but as for the rest... who knows...
The Mac Pro can't be, but the others certainly can/probably will.
Because, as an iPod, it needs to be pocketable.
And with the classic being killed off, the touch's form factor is demanded of it.
That and IT'S AN IPOD.
That's not pocketable at all. Not even Android phones get that big. And there's a reason for that.
Given the choice between poor quality with a 4.5" screen or a 3.5" iPhone, people keep choosing the iPhone.
Wonder why. Don't think it has much to do with the size of the screen.
Sorry, I guess I should have said 4.5 inches because that extra .2 inches, evidently, is a dealbreaker. I don't think you have any idea how small a sub-five-inch device is. We're talking screen diagonal measure, not the dimensions of the device overall.
Well images can scale down. You could have any resolution from 1.0 to 2.0 working with previously doubled images ( proportions being the same).
Sure but it will introduce significant aliasing, which is ugly.
If Apple tries to market a more expensive iPad, the cost goes even higher. The reason is that we're talking about far fewer units which means the cost per unit increases that much more. You're being wildly optimistic in thinking Apple could deliver an iPad Plus for only $100 more. The cost would be much higher because such a device would sell in the thousands, not the millions we're seeing with the current iPad.
It depends how different the assembly is for such an iPad-HD compared to the regular one. They already make many different models of iPad, but they're just variants on a basic design so it's not decreasing margins much.
The question comes down to the cost of the screen, if it added no more than the 3G connectivity then I don't think it would be a big problem at all, indeed I expect it would immediately become the top selling model.
Software development is less of an issue, so long as the screen is double the resolution then correctly written universal apps should just work unmodified. iPad only apps would just need double resolution bitmaps provided to benefit, but would display fine even without them.
Hey! Apple Insider kicks up the hysteria a notch by calling it an actual, "iPad 3"
I have always wanted a iPad pro.
Sorry, I guess I should have said 4.5 inches because that extra .2 inches, evidently, is a dealbreaker. I don't think you have any idea how small a sub-five-inch device is. We're talking screen diagonal measure, not the dimensions of the device overall.
I know exactly how large they are. Not everyone has pockets the size of Wisconsin.
I have always wanted a iPad pro.
So buy an iPad with a Bluetooth keyboard or a MacBook Air.
This Ipad 3 HD will not drop this year. They are using there billions of dollars to stock pile pre-made ipad 3's this time for the feb launch like last year. This time they figure if they build them for 6 months before launch they will meet the insane demand this time out of the gates.
That's absurd. There's no way they would be stockpiling a product for 8 months before release. If they were producing them today, they would certainly want to get them to market before Christmas - and possibly for back to school.
An iPad HD would have a superior crushing effect on the competition during the holiday shopping season. Beyond that there is lots of room in Apples line up for more iOS devices.
I don't know if the technology is there yet, but if it is, it might be of interest to some people.
However, I'm not sure it would be as big a deal as some tech geeks think. The entire point of the iPad line is 'simple, elegant, reliable, capable'. Adding a HD screen as an option goes against that. It doesn't really improve any of those things, except (maybe) capability. What would and HD iPad do that a regular one wouldn't? Not a heck of a lot. In fact, other than the tiny number of people who do CAD and/or photo editing on the iPad, it's not clear that there's any advantage. And given that you need more RAM and a heftier processor (or else you have to give up performance if you keep the same processor), it might actually be a disadvantage. Apple doesn't like differentiating products purely on specs.
That said, I think there IS a potential market for an iPad PRO. Apple is far more likely to differentiate the product by its intended market than its specs. They could offer an iPad pro with an HD screen targeted at graphics users, CAD users, serious action gamers, people doing text-intensive work, and so on. Because it's used by pros rather than casual users, the shorter battery life that you might get from the higher density screen, faster processor, and greater RAM might be acceptable (pro users are less likely to be operating for long periods away from a power source).
Plus, that enables them to obtain higher margins. A quad core processor doesn't cost much more than a dual core and doubling the RAM wouldn't be horribly expensive. But most of the components remain the same (case, backlight, battery, motherboard, etc), so the total cost might only go up 10% or so while the selling price would probably go up 20-30%.
Size has nothing to do with the failures in the market place at the moment. Using your logic the iPod Touch would be a failure. It would be far better to wake up to the reality that iPad is awfully big for some uses.
I think your desire to beat somebody over the head has got the better of you. You know well that both 3.5" devices (iPod touch) and 10" devices selling well can hardly be taken as an indicator that any intermediate size will also sell well. And you also know well that not all sizes will be prove to be practical and popular in the long run. Thus why claim that size has nothing to do with success? I can only guess, but I would assume that you meant to say that size had less to do with the success of the 7" tablets than the previous poster implied.
But the words 'has less to do' simply weren't a big enough stick, so you used 'nothing to do', which charitably could be called overstating the facts or just a flat out lie (but I guess I lie that is so obviously a lie, isn't really a lie but just a rhetorical tool, though an unpleasant and brutish tool).
My prediction - iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S/Lite and no new iPod Touch or iPad.
Why would Apple not update the iPod touch to the iPhone 5 internals? It has done so now for four years and not doing so just headaches in terms of OS and app compatibility.
It depends how different the assembly is for such an iPad-HD compared to the regular one. They already make many different models of iPad, but they're just variants on a basic design so it's not decreasing margins much.
Margins are not the issue, nor is ease of assembly. Apple has enough design experience and experience working with their partners to work through assembly problems. Besides, who cares if it takes 6 minutes to assemble instead of 4 when you're paying $10 a day?
The real issue is going to be marketing. EVERYTHING is about marketing with Apple. I don't see them selling a product solely on the basis of one component having greater specs. Rather, they will sell it on the basis of the entire package.
Look at the iPhone 4. Did they sell the phone because of the screen specs? Probably a few. But the majority were probably sold on the basis of the entire system's capability. Faster processor, more RAM, greater battery life, gorgeous screen, etc. The focus was on the PRODUCT, not the specs. If you focus on the specs, you make it easy for a competitor to produce a crappy product which happens to have a better spec - and beat you at your game.
It's not like Apple (or any good marketing company) to try to sell their system on the basis of a single specification. Rather, they'll focus on the entire package. Can I see an iPad HD added to the line to sell alongside the regular iPad? Yes (assuming the technology is available which hasn't yet been proven). But it almost certainly won't be sold on the basis of the screen alone. It will be sold on the basis of the entire capability of the device and will focus on the capabilities, not the specs. Thus, I see 'iPad Pro' as being far more likely than 'iPad HD'.