Apple's next-gen 9.7" iPad expected to be 25% lighter, 15% thinner, debut in Q3

2

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 45
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    2) With the new chips and lithography lighter and thinner were always going to happen. The iPad 3 was an anomaly in Apple's history..

    I don't know anybody who didn't buy a 3 because it was heavier or thicker than the 2. And did I miss something? Did the 3 sell less units than the 2? I thought people were trading in their 2s to buy a 3! The 4 likely has sold less because the mini cannibalized some sales from it.
  • Reply 22 of 45
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    mac_128 wrote: »
    I don't know anybody who didn't buy a 3 because it was heavier or thicker than the 2. And did I miss something? Did the 3 sell less units than the 2? I thought people were trading in their 2s to buy a 3! The 4 likely has sold less because the mini cannibalized some sales from it.

    It was an anomaly but it was the right move. The Retina Display on the iPad for the same price was a huge step. So much so that making it noticeably heavier and thicker wasn't enough of an issue to prevent sales. I think the iPad 4 probably sold less, not because of the iPad mini, but because it was just faster with no other change. I think even less people were complaining about the iPad 3 performance than the weight or thickness. Still, I'll be happy to get a smaller, lighter, faster, strong iPad 5.
  • Reply 23 of 45
    gazoobeegazoobee Posts: 3,754member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    I don't know anybody who didn't buy a 3 because it was heavier or thicker than the 2. And did I miss something? Did the 3 sell less units than the 2? I thought people were trading in their 2s to buy a 3! The 4 likely has sold less because the mini cannibalized some sales from it.


     


    I don't know anyone who didn't buy the 3 because it was heavier and thicker either, until the iPad mini came out.  


     


    The iPad 3 came out six months before the mini so a lot of the sales of the 3 would have happened before anyone had the lighter thinner mini to compare it to.  The iPad mini is the real source of the perception that the iPad 3 is "heavy" because once you pick up a mini, the iPad 3 does indeed feel like a brick.  The mini is literally half the weight and does all the same things.  


     


    Apple doesn't break out figures, but all indications are that the iPad mini is the most popular iPad they sell by a large margin.  Thus, this year's "regular" iPad will be turned into a "large iPad mini" by taking up design cues from it's upstart sibling.  

  • Reply 24 of 45
    pokepoke Posts: 506member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post





    I don't know anybody who didn't buy a 3 because it was heavier or thicker than the 2. And did I miss something? Did the 3 sell less units than the 2? I thought people were trading in their 2s to buy a 3! The 4 likely has sold less because the mini cannibalized some sales from it.


     


    Apple said they had a higher mix of the iPad 2 in their iPad sales than expected, causing a reduction in ASP after the iPad 3 was introduced (this was before the iPad mini).

  • Reply 25 of 45
    Apple does not seem to care a lot about being hit below the magical 400$ price....or they are preparing a BIG hit in the next weeks OR they are so confident in they future that there are going down with their polished products that they oversell with a lot of margin, happened before with other companies , I hope for the first scenario, meanwhile Samsung are producing S4's at an alarming rate...but yeah....in plastic....what a strange and crazy market this is.
  • Reply 26 of 45
    ptramptram Posts: 58member


    Coming from an iPad 2 and iPad mini, I would not be interested in another iPad with faster graphics for videogames, or video resolution exceeding the human eye capabilities. But I would buy an iPad weighting less, with the same screen size of the 10" model: perfect for reading and writing, while taking it in your hands.

  • Reply 27 of 45
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    I'd buy a 1.5 pound 15" iPad. The original iPad isn't heavy, and having a 15" screen would be the first major gateway toward the future of portable computing.

  • Reply 28 of 45
    I will wait for a later iPad version. Because, I use the iPad for content consumption. Right now I can not rent a movie on my iPad, then watch it on my appleTV, then move back to the iPad. Many more examples. Bottom line is this, hardware is fine, they have to make content easier to view and to access.
  • Reply 29 of 45
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    I don't know anyone who didn't buy the 3 because it was heavier and thicker either, until the iPad mini came out.  


     


    The iPad 3 came out six months before the mini so a lot of the sales of the 3 would have happened before anyone had the lighter thinner mini to compare it to.  The iPad mini is the real source of the perception that the iPad 3 is "heavy" because once you pick up a mini, the iPad 3 does indeed feel like a brick.  The mini is literally half the weight and does all the same things.  


     


    Apple doesn't break out figures, but all indications are that the iPad mini is the most popular iPad they sell by a large margin.  Thus, this year's "regular" iPad will be turned into a "large iPad mini" by taking up design cues from it's upstart sibling.  



    They did extend the iPad2's production due to good demand, but yes I'm going to be switching to a lighter full size iPad with those sorts of "mini-like" attributes from my iPad 3.

  • Reply 30 of 45
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member
    Not so sure the iPad 5 will incorporate an A7/A7x, more likely an A6x on a 28nm process running about 30 percent faster than the one in the iPad 4 and maybe incorporating Apple's new fingerprint identification technology on-die.
  • Reply 31 of 45
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Tjduffy View Post

    Right now I can not rent a movie on my iPad, then watch it on my appleTV, then move back to the iPad.


     


    Well, yeah. You only get one view on that rental.






    hardware is fine, they have to make content easier to view and to access.





    So why in the world are you waiting for a later iPad when that's hardware?






    Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

    Not so sure the iPad 5 will incorporate an A7/A7x…


     



    The fact that people say this EVERY SINGLE REVISION and are wrong doesn't tip you off to the fact that you're wrong? They're not going to use the same chip two years in a row. That's what the idiot trolls CLAIM every single time AFTER it has come out, and they're ALWAYS wrong.

  • Reply 32 of 45
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,382member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by DarenDino View Post



    So Apple isn't releasing ANYTHING till Q3?, no wonder their shares are tumbling, nearly 5 months into 2013 and bugger all from them.


     


    Yeah, cause Apple should just "release something" cause their stock is low. You know, a brilliant strategy for a company focused on great products and long term success. I would prefer than Apple continue working on whatever the hell they're working on behind the scenes, and make announcements when they're damn well ready. Having knee-jerk reactions in order to attempt to satisfy the stock is the sign of a weak company that lacks confidence and vision. It's actually comforting to me that Apple has remained quiet, because it shows that they see the big picture and are confident in their pipeline. By the way, what current generation Apple product are you unsatisfied with, that you desperately need it to be replaced with another version asap? What is it that is so desperately in need of an update? Apple's current lineup is extremely solid, and can hold it's own until Apple has something to show. 


     


    Also, you may have noticed that there was a massive management shakeup not long ago. Forstall has been in charge of iOS since it's inception. The guy basically created the OS and its direction. Ive had a lot of catching up to do, and if people are really expecting a redesign from him, both both visually and functionally, that's a massive job and takes more than a few months. Apple knows it needs to get this right, and that it is better to release when ready than released an unfinished, buggy product in order to satisfy those with OCD, at the expense of hundreds of millions of people who will use the product. Transitions take time, and Apple deserves some time. They still have the best products in every single hardware category, so I don't see what the issue is. 

  • Reply 33 of 45
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member


    "The fact that people say this EVERY SINGLE REVISION and are wrong doesn't tip you off to the fact that you're wrong? They're not going to use the same chip two years in a row. That's what the idiot trolls CLAIM every single time AFTER it has come out, and they're ALWAYS wrong."


     


    Yes I know, but the reason I'm predicting it this time is that I'd imagine the 'A7' is going to be a much more powerful SoC than the A6 and that requires quite a lot more transistors, which even at 28nm its going to be a bigger more power-hungry chip - and with the redesign of the iPad seemingly directed at getting it thinner, lighter and more power efficient so as to get the battery size down, this would seem the way to go, it still would be faster, and the current iPad 4 is not lacking in power, its just too heavy! Nonetheless I would still be happy if I'm wrong and they do manage to get a powerhouse A7/A7x into a slimmer lighter iPad. 

  • Reply 34 of 45
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    darendino wrote: »
    So Apple isn't releasing ANYTHING till Q3?, no wonder their shares are tumbling, nearly 5 months into 2013 and bugger all from them.

    Do you happen to remember that the iPad mini was in short supply because GF2 displays were hard to make in the numbers needed? You don't? I thought not.

    Now they're going to make a second, larger GF2 device in large numbers. Do you think the equipment for making these displays grows on trees in Taiwan?

    They'll release when their manufacturing capacity allows. Bugger all indeed.
  • Reply 35 of 45
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    1983 wrote: »
    <span style="color:rgb(24,24,24);font-family:arial, helvetica, sans-serif;line-height:18.1875px;">"The fact that people say this EVERY SINGLE REVISION and are wrong doesn't tip you off to the fact that you're wrong? They're not going to use the same chip two years in a row. That's what the idiot trolls CLAIM every single time AFTER it has come out, and they're ALWAYS wrong."</span>


    <span style="line-height:18.1875px;">Yes I know, but the reason I'm predicting it this time is that I'd imagine the 'A7' is going to be a much more powerful SoC than the A6 and that requires quite a lot more transistors, which even at 28nm its going to be a bigger more power-hungry chip - and with the redesign of the iPad seemingly directed at getting it thinner, lighter and more power efficient so as to get the battery size down, this would seem the way to go, it still would be faster, and the current iPad 4 is not lacking in power, its just too heavy! Nonetheless I would still be happy if I'm wrong and they do manage to get a powerhouse A7/A7x into a slimmer lighter iPad. </span>

    Maybe ol' Ming-Chi left out the part about IGZO. I hope for that too.

    Come to think of it, I don't remember reading anything that says GF2 saves on power.
  • Reply 36 of 45
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    1983 wrote: »
    Yes I know, but the reason I'm predicting it this time is that I'd imagine the 'A7' is going to be a much more powerful SoC than the A6 and that requires quite a lot more transistors, which even at 28nm its going to be a bigger more power-hungry chip - and with the redesign of the iPad seemingly directed at getting it thinner, lighter and more power efficient so as to get the battery size down, this would seem the way to go, it still would be faster, and the current iPad 4 is not lacking in power, its just too heavy! Nonetheless I would still be happy if I'm wrong and they do manage to get a powerhouse A7/A7x into a slimmer lighter iPad.

    What evidence do you have the A7 will be a much bigger, more-power hungry chip?
  • Reply 37 of 45
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by 1983 View Post


    with the redesign of the iPad seemingly directed at getting it thinner, lighter and more power efficient so as to get the battery size down, this would seem the way to go… …if I'm wrong and they do manage to get a powerhouse A7/A7x into a slimmer lighter iPad. 



     


    Thing about Apple is to not believe the hate. They've always been capable of more than any other company.






    the current iPad 4 is not lacking in power, its just too heavy!



     


    It's 1.3 pounds. Come on. They're not asking for you to Iron Cross four gallons of milk, now. image

  • Reply 38 of 45
    19831983 Posts: 1,225member


    I don't, but usually the way to get a more powerful processor without bumbing up the clock speed too much means going to more processor cores - more processor cores requires more transistors, more sophisticated GPU's require more transistors etc...more transistors increases dye size and thus power consumption. This increased power consumption is countered by reducing transistor size - 45nm to 32nm etc...but this year the smallest widely available process is 28nm which is only about 30 percent smaller than the current A6x's 32nm process. You can fit nearly two 32nm transistors into the space of one 45nm one - you can only fit about 1.3 28nm transistors into the space of a single 32nm one - see what I'm getting at? They can't say double or more...the processing power of the next gen SoC without significantly increasing the transistor count and power consumption. 28nm doesn't provide enough headroom for that - next years 20nm process will. But the iPad 5 isn't coming out next year, its coming out in a few months - according to the rumour mills. That's why I'm guessing (and only guessing - I'm allowed too, right?) that they'll carry over the A6x on a 28nm process at a slightly faster clock speed with no increased power consumption. Of course if Apple goes IGZO with the display - which from what I understand is considerably more power efficient than the iPad's current LCD technology, then I suppose that would go some way to counter the increased power consumption from a potentially more powerful A7/A7x chip maybe? We'll see...

  • Reply 39 of 45
    frank777frank777 Posts: 5,839member


    The story seems reasonable, except for the timetable. Releasing in September means a full year between versions.


     


    If Jobs saw the flagship product getting beaten into the ground by its mini-version, he'd have cracked the whip and had the slimmer version out in six months.


     


    Is the new iPad going to play second fiddle again, this time to a holiday-issue iPad Mini with Retina?

  • Reply 40 of 45
    dunksdunks Posts: 1,254member
    gtr wrote: »
    Agreed.

    If the last two versions of the iPad ever had an Achilles Heal, it was that they had fat Achilles Heals.

    Light is might!

    Heel.
Sign In or Register to comment.