I really hope this is true. If so, I'll be pre-ordering the heck out of it. I wouldn't even care if it wasn't retina, just to keep weight down and battery life up. My only gripe is with the current iPad mini design. I like it but I'd like the option of raw aluminum back with black bezel front, like previous gens have been.
No, the iPad 4 was released to get the A6X out there -- the iPad 3 is underpowered for a retina display of that size.
NO, the iPad 4 was released to get an iPad out there with Lightning connectors. It would look awfully stupid to not have an iPad with Lightning connectors when your top of the line iPhone you are selling like crazy has it. They needed a top of the line iPad to complement it for all the new iPhone users buying iPads.
They also took the opportunity to upgrade the processor and fix various other limiting features that they could easily do. But the major reason was the connector -- bet on it.
No, the iPad 4 was released to get the A6X out there -- the iPad 3 is underpowered for a retina display of that size.
NO, the iPad 4 was released to get an iPad out there with Lightning connectors. It would look awfully stupid to not have an iPad with Lightning connectors when your top of the line iPhone you are selling like crazy has it. They needed a top of the line iPad to complement it for all the new iPhone users buying iPads.
They also took the opportunity to upgrade the processor and fix various other limiting features that they could easily do. But the major reason was the connector -- bet on it.
Totally disagree... Apple could have re-released the iPad 3 with an inexpensive minor change of the Lightening connector and case back -- if that's all they wanted to do. Rather, the iPad 3 runs hot and slow for certain CPU/GPU intensive apps. The A6X solves this problem and maintains a performance advantage over the competition.
Totally disagree... Apple could have re-released the iPad 3 with an inexpensive minor change of the Lightening connector and case back -- if that's all they wanted to do. Rather, the iPad 3 runs hot and slow for certain CPU/GPU intensive apps. The A6X solves this problem and maintains a performance advantage over the competition.
If they had not put the Lightning connector on the iPhone 5, the 4th Gen iPad would not have been released. Sorry, but the Lightning connector was the motivator. Now, they took the opportunity to "fix" or enhance other things that would not require a complete rework of the device, like the A6X. But the purpose was the Lightning connector. This is more than obvious, it is the only answer that makes sense.
There was no huge outcry against the 3rd Gen iPad that forced Apple to update it. They took the opportunity since they had to have a Lightning equipped iPad. What apple could have done to get there is immaterial. The fact is, that the reason they did anything in the first place was the lack of a Lightning connector on the iPad line and needing one to match the iPhone 5 for new buyers of the iPhone 5 to be able to buy an iPad that did not force the old connector on them.
If they had not put the Lightning connector on the iPhone 5, the 4th Gen iPad would not have been released. Sorry, but the Lightning connector was the motivator.
Thanks for confirming something you don't know at all, and which just doesn't sound right on the face of it.
But the purpose was the Lightning connector. This is more than obvious, it is the only answer that makes sense.
Enlighten us. Why.
The fact is, that the reason they did anything in the first place was the lack of a Lightning connector on the iPad line and needing one to match the iPhone 5 for new buyers of the iPhone 5 to be able to buy an iPad that did not force the old connector on them.
And your reasons for them leaving the Dock Connector on the iPad 2 and the iPod classic are?
Thanks for confirming something you don't know at all, and which just doesn't sound right on the face of it.
Enlighten us. Why.
And your reasons for them leaving the Dock Connector on the iPad 2 and the iPod classic are?
You are more than welcome! And it does sound right on the face of it. More than right. Based on Apple's history and known MO, and plain rational thinking, it is the only logical answer.
There was no huge outcry for a new iPad. Most people are not pushing the iPad CPU/GPU that hard at the moment anyway. Even though I am a tech-head and iOS developer and gadget freak, I know I don't push my iPad 3 up against any walls. They could easily have waited for their normal schedule of upgrades to come out with a new faster and more powerful retina iPad. But it would look mighty stupid to have an iPhone with Lightning but no iPad companion for it. And make all the new iPhone buyers who also want an iPad (non mini) buy an incompatible plug model of the iPad to go along with their brand new iPhone. That is why. And to make it compelling and look like a reasonable update, and because they can, they put the A6 (in A6X guise) into it and updated the camera.
Are you really this dense or do you just play it on the forums? The iPad 2 is an existing product. Putting Lightning on that makes no sense. They have the large format iPad covered with Lightning with the iPad 4th gen. iPad 2 is old technology that is being milked for all its worth at the low end (which is a perfect strategy). And iPod Classic? Really? Is this a serious question?
If you look at Apple's MO, they update the product line (iOS line) once a year. iPhone once a year. iPad once a year (I bet we don't see an iPad mini until Fall and a large format iPad in the Spring, unless they want to align the mini with the large, which might get us a mini in the Spring, but then again not for a year). This is smart and it pays off for Apple: it is a lot easier to manage once a year transitions. It is less confusing for the customer and the customer does not put of purchases wondering if a new better device is coming out (at least until they expect such a device, then they might postpone it a short while to hit the next cycle), and it allows them to realize better margins (and hence better average margins over the lifetime of a given product). Apple is famous for keeping high margins. Part of how they do this is to not update products all the time, but to ride the margin curve to realize a larger overall average margin. Products are more expensive to manufacture when they first come out, and less expensive after they have been in production for a few or many months. Apple uses that to their advantage to make more money off a given R&D expenditure by making the product line last longer and not always being at the beginning, more expensive end of a product line, which is when it is new. There is a reason Apple makes 3/4 or more of all profits in the mobile industry. They work the product cycle like masters. Those companies that come out with new phones every 6 months are always on the expensive end and never get to take advantage of the cheap end of the cycle.
Anyway, the Lightning update make the most sense on why there was a 6month update on the full size iPad when the iPhone 5 came out and I don't expect that we will see that again iOS devices. It will be approx a year between updates of a given product. That can vary a small amount, of course, (one year Oct, next year in Sept for example) and there can be one-off changes to the cycle (like with iPad 4 and Lightning, or when the iPhone went from Spring to Fall). But in general I expect Apple to keep on the same MO they had been since the iPhone and iPad came out with about yearly updates to each device. It makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, a resource expenditure standpoint, a profit and margin standpoint, and an inventory control standpoint.
Most people are not pushing the iPad CPU/GPU that hard at the moment anyway.
I believe Dick Applebaum's argument to be, at the very least, partially valid (and probably entirely so). I remember myself early benchmarks that intimated the same thing. So can (or have you, and I've missed it) you explain why you are ignoring his points?
But it would look mighty stupid to have an iPhone with Lightning but no iPad companion for it.
Why.
And to make it compelling and look like a reasonable update, and because they can, they put the A6 (in A6X guise)
Nope. Try again. There was no "guise". There is no "make it look". A6X is an A6 with far better graphics. It's no different than variances within a single family of Intel chips, for example.
The iPad 2 is an existing product. Putting Lightning on that makes no sense.
Really? That's funny. So why did it "make sense" to put Lightning on the "existing product" that was the iPad 3? Because according to you, the iPad 4 is just a gussied up iPad 3, pushed out with (and for the sole purpose of) a new connector.
Why didn't Apple update their entire computer line simultaneously when they started shipping Thunderbolt? They must have looked "really stupid" making available a laptop with the new port when you couldn't buy a desktop with the same. You can say this about any feature, you know; 802.11n, Bluetooth 4.0…
And iPod Classic? Really? Is this a serious question?
Yes, as it is not the "old product" and has no "coverage" otherwise. Every modern model of iPod received Lightning except for it. Why, if Lighting was the "only reason" for the update?
If you look at Apple's MO, they update the product line (iOS line) once a year. iPhone once a year. iPad once a year (I bet we don't see an iPad mini until Fall and a large format iPad in the Spring…
Thing about Apple is: they like to keep people guessing. I'd've said the exact same until the most recent event (in fact, I absolutely did ). Now, what with that having been a 6 month update (and a proper, full update, despite what some pretend), I don't think we can say they're still on the one-per-year cycle anymore. At least until we have more than one data point with which to play.
…it is a lot easier to manage once a year transitions. It is less confusing for the customer and the customer does not put of purchases wondering if a new better device is coming out, and it allows them to realize better margins (and hence better average margins over the lifetime of a given product). But in general I expect Apple to keep on the same MO they had been since the iPhone and iPad came out with about yearly updates to each device. It makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, a resource expenditure standpoint, a profit and margin standpoint, and an inventory control standpoint.
I'm in total agreement! I think the one-per-year strategy, in the face of their competitors churning out all the crap they possibly can every three months, is the best strategy. But again, they could very well be changing that. We can't know yet.
Well, I've never had any complaint about the battery life of my Gen3 iPad. Sure 20 hours would be "better" on paper but if the battery life of the current iPad is sufficient for 99% of the people who use it, then why increase the weight?
10 hours is a good round number. It's the flight time from where I live (Maryland) to Hawaii. 10 hours can also get me pretty much anywhere in Europe...all the way to Moscow.
If I need to fly further I can bring an external battery. 12000mAh is $80 on Amazon. If I want a battery that can charge my MBA or iPad I can get a 150Wh battery for $170.
If there's a layover then there's an outlet I can use.
10 hours is a good round number. It's the flight time from where I live (Maryland) to Hawaii. 10 hours can also get me pretty much anywhere in Europe...all the way to Moscow.
If I need to fly further I can bring an external battery. 12000mAh is $80 on Amazon. If I want a battery that can charge my MBA or iPad I can get a 150Wh battery for $170.
If there's a layover then there's an outlet I can use.
Yup for most devices battery life isn't a big issue unless its terrible like the first round d LTE smartphones.
As long as its more than 8hrs most people will be happy.
Don't really care much about the date. Does anyone remember the samseg haptics rumour that spread before the iPad 3 announcement last year? Wonder where that went.
Just offer a Retina iPad Mini and I'll be happy. Until then, my Nook Color works fine as a reader.
Oh I have a Nook to, the tablet version second gen, still use it everyday. I know it's only plastic but the look and feel still puts a smile on my face, favorite 7' Android tablet. The device it's self was pretty cheap but with all the books I have bought over the last two years it's works out to be around 2,200 bucks. Do you think it's possible to sell it like that?
Yeah, Apple's unhealthy obsession with thin needs to go away. I'm sorry, I'd like a longer battery life and an easily removable battery MUCH more than I'd like a thinner device.
And that's even more important when it comes to computers. I'd be VERY happy with a high-res display 15" laptop that's half an inch thicker than the current MBP, if it gives me a more powerful graphics chip, 4 RAM slots, an easily swappable larger battery, and maybe a swappable media bay.
Actually, now that I think about it, Apple's PowerBook G3 series was the PERFECT form factor. Pop-out battery, media bay that could hold a second battery, lift the keyboard for hard drive access, ports on the BACK, not the side, and covered. Make it a fast core i7, put in a retina display, full complement of modern ports (2 thunderbolt, 2 firewire, 3-4 USB, HDMI, ethernet, expresscard 54) and a bigger trackpad (but keep the real button, it was better), and you'd have the perfect portable Mac. Sure, it's thick, but it's comfortably curved, no sharp edge at the front like today's machines.
The Lambart Powerbook and 2400c werebmy favorite laptops of all time, I had two batteries, zip drive, Mitsubishi Magnetic and an extra HDD that all fit into the DVD rom slot. When Apple released the Titanium I skipped it and just bought a G4 500mhz upgrade card instead. I kept that thing going for almost 4 years before I finally bought the 12" Aluminium model, also a favorite.
I'm looking to upgrade to the ipad 5 so hopefully Apple makes the device thinner and more importantly lighter. Also it would be nice if they removed the 16gb storage option and started it at 32gb for $499 similar to the Nexus 10 pricing. Also make it twice as fast as the ipad 4.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
No, the iPad 4 was released to get the A6X out there -- the iPad 3 is underpowered for a retina display of that size.
NO, the iPad 4 was released to get an iPad out there with Lightning connectors. It would look awfully stupid to not have an iPad with Lightning connectors when your top of the line iPhone you are selling like crazy has it. They needed a top of the line iPad to complement it for all the new iPhone users buying iPads.
They also took the opportunity to upgrade the processor and fix various other limiting features that they could easily do. But the major reason was the connector -- bet on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadbag
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
No, the iPad 4 was released to get the A6X out there -- the iPad 3 is underpowered for a retina display of that size.
NO, the iPad 4 was released to get an iPad out there with Lightning connectors. It would look awfully stupid to not have an iPad with Lightning connectors when your top of the line iPhone you are selling like crazy has it. They needed a top of the line iPad to complement it for all the new iPhone users buying iPads.
They also took the opportunity to upgrade the processor and fix various other limiting features that they could easily do. But the major reason was the connector -- bet on it.
Totally disagree... Apple could have re-released the iPad 3 with an inexpensive minor change of the Lightening connector and case back -- if that's all they wanted to do. Rather, the iPad 3 runs hot and slow for certain CPU/GPU intensive apps. The A6X solves this problem and maintains a performance advantage over the competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Totally disagree... Apple could have re-released the iPad 3 with an inexpensive minor change of the Lightening connector and case back -- if that's all they wanted to do. Rather, the iPad 3 runs hot and slow for certain CPU/GPU intensive apps. The A6X solves this problem and maintains a performance advantage over the competition.
If they had not put the Lightning connector on the iPhone 5, the 4th Gen iPad would not have been released. Sorry, but the Lightning connector was the motivator. Now, they took the opportunity to "fix" or enhance other things that would not require a complete rework of the device, like the A6X. But the purpose was the Lightning connector. This is more than obvious, it is the only answer that makes sense.
There was no huge outcry against the 3rd Gen iPad that forced Apple to update it. They took the opportunity since they had to have a Lightning equipped iPad. What apple could have done to get there is immaterial. The fact is, that the reason they did anything in the first place was the lack of a Lightning connector on the iPad line and needing one to match the iPhone 5 for new buyers of the iPhone 5 to be able to buy an iPad that did not force the old connector on them.
Originally Posted by chadbag
If they had not put the Lightning connector on the iPhone 5, the 4th Gen iPad would not have been released. Sorry, but the Lightning connector was the motivator.
Thanks for confirming something you don't know at all, and which just doesn't sound right on the face of it.
But the purpose was the Lightning connector. This is more than obvious, it is the only answer that makes sense.
Enlighten us. Why.
The fact is, that the reason they did anything in the first place was the lack of a Lightning connector on the iPad line and needing one to match the iPhone 5 for new buyers of the iPhone 5 to be able to buy an iPad that did not force the old connector on them.
And your reasons for them leaving the Dock Connector on the iPad 2 and the iPod classic are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thanks for confirming something you don't know at all, and which just doesn't sound right on the face of it.
Enlighten us. Why.
And your reasons for them leaving the Dock Connector on the iPad 2 and the iPod classic are?
You are more than welcome! And it does sound right on the face of it. More than right. Based on Apple's history and known MO, and plain rational thinking, it is the only logical answer.
There was no huge outcry for a new iPad. Most people are not pushing the iPad CPU/GPU that hard at the moment anyway. Even though I am a tech-head and iOS developer and gadget freak, I know I don't push my iPad 3 up against any walls. They could easily have waited for their normal schedule of upgrades to come out with a new faster and more powerful retina iPad. But it would look mighty stupid to have an iPhone with Lightning but no iPad companion for it. And make all the new iPhone buyers who also want an iPad (non mini) buy an incompatible plug model of the iPad to go along with their brand new iPhone. That is why. And to make it compelling and look like a reasonable update, and because they can, they put the A6 (in A6X guise) into it and updated the camera.
Are you really this dense or do you just play it on the forums? The iPad 2 is an existing product. Putting Lightning on that makes no sense. They have the large format iPad covered with Lightning with the iPad 4th gen. iPad 2 is old technology that is being milked for all its worth at the low end (which is a perfect strategy). And iPod Classic? Really? Is this a serious question?
If you look at Apple's MO, they update the product line (iOS line) once a year. iPhone once a year. iPad once a year (I bet we don't see an iPad mini until Fall and a large format iPad in the Spring, unless they want to align the mini with the large, which might get us a mini in the Spring, but then again not for a year). This is smart and it pays off for Apple: it is a lot easier to manage once a year transitions. It is less confusing for the customer and the customer does not put of purchases wondering if a new better device is coming out (at least until they expect such a device, then they might postpone it a short while to hit the next cycle), and it allows them to realize better margins (and hence better average margins over the lifetime of a given product). Apple is famous for keeping high margins. Part of how they do this is to not update products all the time, but to ride the margin curve to realize a larger overall average margin. Products are more expensive to manufacture when they first come out, and less expensive after they have been in production for a few or many months. Apple uses that to their advantage to make more money off a given R&D expenditure by making the product line last longer and not always being at the beginning, more expensive end of a product line, which is when it is new. There is a reason Apple makes 3/4 or more of all profits in the mobile industry. They work the product cycle like masters. Those companies that come out with new phones every 6 months are always on the expensive end and never get to take advantage of the cheap end of the cycle.
Anyway, the Lightning update make the most sense on why there was a 6month update on the full size iPad when the iPhone 5 came out and I don't expect that we will see that again iOS devices. It will be approx a year between updates of a given product. That can vary a small amount, of course, (one year Oct, next year in Sept for example) and there can be one-off changes to the cycle (like with iPad 4 and Lightning, or when the iPhone went from Spring to Fall). But in general I expect Apple to keep on the same MO they had been since the iPhone and iPad came out with about yearly updates to each device. It makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, a resource expenditure standpoint, a profit and margin standpoint, and an inventory control standpoint.
Originally Posted by chadbag
Most people are not pushing the iPad CPU/GPU that hard at the moment anyway.
I believe Dick Applebaum's argument to be, at the very least, partially valid (and probably entirely so). I remember myself early benchmarks that intimated the same thing. So can (or have you, and I've missed it) you explain why you are ignoring his points?
But it would look mighty stupid to have an iPhone with Lightning but no iPad companion for it.
Why.
And to make it compelling and look like a reasonable update, and because they can, they put the A6 (in A6X guise)
Nope. Try again. There was no "guise". There is no "make it look". A6X is an A6 with far better graphics. It's no different than variances within a single family of Intel chips, for example.
The iPad 2 is an existing product. Putting Lightning on that makes no sense.
Really? That's funny. So why did it "make sense" to put Lightning on the "existing product" that was the iPad 3? Because according to you, the iPad 4 is just a gussied up iPad 3, pushed out with (and for the sole purpose of) a new connector.
Why didn't Apple update their entire computer line simultaneously when they started shipping Thunderbolt? They must have looked "really stupid" making available a laptop with the new port when you couldn't buy a desktop with the same. You can say this about any feature, you know; 802.11n, Bluetooth 4.0…
And iPod Classic? Really? Is this a serious question?
Yes, as it is not the "old product" and has no "coverage" otherwise. Every modern model of iPod received Lightning except for it. Why, if Lighting was the "only reason" for the update?
If you look at Apple's MO, they update the product line (iOS line) once a year. iPhone once a year. iPad once a year (I bet we don't see an iPad mini until Fall and a large format iPad in the Spring…
Thing about Apple is: they like to keep people guessing. I'd've said the exact same until the most recent event (in fact, I absolutely did
…it is a lot easier to manage once a year transitions. It is less confusing for the customer and the customer does not put of purchases wondering if a new better device is coming out, and it allows them to realize better margins (and hence better average margins over the lifetime of a given product). But in general I expect Apple to keep on the same MO they had been since the iPhone and iPad came out with about yearly updates to each device. It makes the most sense from an engineering standpoint, a resource expenditure standpoint, a profit and margin standpoint, and an inventory control standpoint.
I'm in total agreement! I think the one-per-year strategy, in the face of their competitors churning out all the crap they possibly can every three months, is the best strategy. But again, they could very well be changing that. We can't know yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by admactanium
Well, I've never had any complaint about the battery life of my Gen3 iPad. Sure 20 hours would be "better" on paper but if the battery life of the current iPad is sufficient for 99% of the people who use it, then why increase the weight?
10 hours is a good round number. It's the flight time from where I live (Maryland) to Hawaii. 10 hours can also get me pretty much anywhere in Europe...all the way to Moscow.
If I need to fly further I can bring an external battery. 12000mAh is $80 on Amazon. If I want a battery that can charge my MBA or iPad I can get a 150Wh battery for $170.
If there's a layover then there's an outlet I can use.
Yup for most devices battery life isn't a big issue unless its terrible like the first round d LTE smartphones.
As long as its more than 8hrs most people will be happy.
Don't really care much about the date. Does anyone remember the samseg haptics rumour that spread before the iPad 3 announcement last year? Wonder where that went.
ROFL , how many RT surfaces have been sold? oh right
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Just offer a Retina iPad Mini and I'll be happy. Until then, my Nook Color works fine as a reader.
Oh I have a Nook to, the tablet version second gen, still use it everyday. I know it's only plastic but the look and feel still puts a smile on my face, favorite 7' Android tablet. The device it's self was pretty cheap but with all the books I have bought over the last two years it's works out to be around 2,200 bucks. Do you think it's possible to sell it like that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVader
Yeah, Apple's unhealthy obsession with thin needs to go away. I'm sorry, I'd like a longer battery life and an easily removable battery MUCH more than I'd like a thinner device.
And that's even more important when it comes to computers. I'd be VERY happy with a high-res display 15" laptop that's half an inch thicker than the current MBP, if it gives me a more powerful graphics chip, 4 RAM slots, an easily swappable larger battery, and maybe a swappable media bay.
Actually, now that I think about it, Apple's PowerBook G3 series was the PERFECT form factor. Pop-out battery, media bay that could hold a second battery, lift the keyboard for hard drive access, ports on the BACK, not the side, and covered. Make it a fast core i7, put in a retina display, full complement of modern ports (2 thunderbolt, 2 firewire, 3-4 USB, HDMI, ethernet, expresscard 54) and a bigger trackpad (but keep the real button, it was better), and you'd have the perfect portable Mac. Sure, it's thick, but it's comfortably curved, no sharp edge at the front like today's machines.
The Lambart Powerbook and 2400c werebmy favorite laptops of all time, I had two batteries, zip drive, Mitsubishi Magnetic and an extra HDD that all fit into the DVD rom slot. When Apple released the Titanium I skipped it and just bought a G4 500mhz upgrade card instead. I kept that thing going for almost 4 years before I finally bought the 12" Aluminium model, also a favorite.
And right on time for a March revision, the inevitable case leak.
http://************/2013/01/28/is-this-the-back-of-apples-redesigned-fifth-generation-ipad/
I know some people will be mad at this quick of an update, but Apple really has no choice. The Mini is beating its bigger sibling into a coma.
Edit: For some reason the link won't post. It's on the Macsurfer page.
Originally Posted by Frank777
Edit: For some reason the link won't post. It's on the Macsurfer page.
The page doesn't seem to exist, itself.