I wouldn?t be complaining about a 264 ppi display that isn?t called a retina display. That is, afterall, a resolution of 2048x1536. That?s more horizontal lines than the 27? iMac and 80% of it vertical lines.
"Though Apple typically follows an annual upgrade pattern for its devices, it was said that Apple could refresh the iPad line ahead of this year's holiday season. That person indicated that the FaceTime-equipped iPad was tracking for an introduction no later than the first quarter of 2011."
Is it me or is this a poor worded statement. In one part they saying that the iPad will be refreshed in for the holiday season and then immediately after it they are saying Q1.
I'm reading this as [some other] people have speculated that the iPad will be refreshed for the holidays, but that this insider with the product plan knowledge is saying not so, instead they are aiming for Q1.
In the few years I have been following Apple, my experience is that apart from iPods Apple generally does not refresh before the holidays. The argument being that a change over of manufacturing lines right before the main rush of sales is too much risk. Apple rather sticks with what they know (and can easily sell) for the holidays. Then switch over production lines in the new year to build up production capability easily when demand is not so strong.
I fully expect to see the new iPad in Q1. Not in Q4.
That seems impossible to me. The iPad has 132 ppi along one axis. The iPhones had 163 ppi so when the doubled it it gave it 326 ppi. 20/20 vision seems to be considered the minimum level for what is a “retina display” which makes the minimum 286 ppi.
Now, doubling the iPad’s resolution (4x as many pixels overall) to 264 ppi would be great to have and would allow for the scaling that made it easy for iOS/App Store developers, but it would still be 22 ppi lower than the minimum they could feasibly call a retina display if they are basing it on 20/20 vision.
Of course they could trademark the term since they apparently made it up or move the goal posts since even 20/22 or better vision is still the minority, but that will have to dealt with if and when the redesign what retina display means.
Well, remember, the "Retina" designation for the iPhone screen is for 12" from your eye, so, at say, 18", not an unreasonable distance, an iPad with 264ppi should qualify just fine. (I'm not bothering to do the math to determine the exact distance it would apply, but, probably under 18".)
Well, remember, the "Retina" designation for the iPhone screen is for 12" from your eye, so, at say, 18", not an unreasonable distance, an iPad with 264ppi should qualify just fine.
Excellent point! I had just assumed 12” for the minimum, but it could be argued that you’d hold a tablet farther away than a phone. I’m not going to do the math on this one either as I’m about to head off on a flight but I think that even less than 18” away would get you to that Retina Display designation with a 264 ppi display.
Apple's overseas touch panel and reinforced glass suppliers are said to be preparing for the launch of Apple's second-generation iPad in the first quarter of 2011.
According to Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes, the suppliers are completing validation for the second-generation iPad, which will maintain the same 9.7-inch screen when it debuts in the first quarter of 2011.
"Component suppliers of iPad are expected to start shipments for the second-generation iPad at the beginning of 2011," the report said.
Specifically cited suppliers were TPK Touch Solutions, WinTek, Cando, Cimei Innolux. Together, they are said to be validating "ultra-thin glass-based touch panels with Apple."
As reported last week by AppleInsider, Apple plans to move aggressively on adding FaceTime functionality to its entire line of iOS devices, leaving the iPad as the last device to receive the upgrade. A person with proven knowledge of the company's future plans indicated that an iPad equipped with a forward facing camera is already in the advanced testing stages at Apple.
Though Apple typically follows an annual upgrade pattern for its devices, it was said that Apple could refresh the iPad line ahead of this year's holiday season. That person indicated that the FaceTime-equipped iPad was tracking for an introduction no later than the first quarter of 2011.
FaceTime is Apple's open standard for video chat. Currently available on the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch, it requires Wi-Fi to operate.
This rumour is pretty thin stuff and yet people are jumping all over it as the truth? I don't get it.
First, if you read this "article" closely, it's plain that the more factual based part (that manufacturers claim to be gearing up for production), has nothing in it that would indicate the presence of a *different* model of iPad with a front facing camera. The camera part of this rumour is the same one we've heard before, that "some people say" they've "heard" that it's in testing at Apple's campus.
Secondly, we haven't seen any field testing outside of Apple's campus at all nor any actual evidence that it's happening. There are no "iPad 2,1" identifies showing up anywhere as they would be expected to do.
Third, even if everything assumed here is true, the timing of the rumours about this model suggest nothing more than this being simply "next years iPad" and set for a release date exactly one year after the original.
Finally, if everything on the iPad stays more or less the same but they add a camera ... so what? Sure, it will make everyone on this forum happy, but it won't do anything to really change the market equation of iPad sales. To think that a tiny hardware spec bump will do much to the sales of iPads is just ridiculous. You people are getting in a tizzy over virtually nothing
The iPad sells as a viewer, a reader, a movie player, an audio player, etc.
It will certainly be great if it has a camera, but most of the people who bought it, didn't buy it to be a fancy video phone, and most won't use it for that. You can't use an iPad equipped with a camera to shoot movies effectively, and if you are into making videos, you'd probably be more enthused at the idea of running iMovie for iOS on the iPad, than using the iPads (no doubt) crappy VGA camera for anything.
Two reasons for me: I would use it to surf, but it cannot access most web video.
I think right now 'most web video' is already stretching it. YouTube videos play, vimeo videos play, there's hulu and netflix app, etc. Really, since I got my iPad, the number of videos I can't play on it has been rapidly decreasing.
There's probably not that much competition for iPad yet so they may be OK for the holiday season, but it would probably be smart to move up the upgrade cycle to before the holidays (if not do shorter upgrade cycle if it's needed).
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Just like with the iPhone, they will only catch up on spec lists, if even there (how long till iPhone competitors actually have Retina equivalent displays, for example). They won't catch up on overall design, build quality and, most importantly, software and user experience.
Whether you agree with that or not, the numbers out there sure seem to suggest that the one year gap between refreshes is long enough for the competition to gain some ground on sales of units (at least based on recent iPhone numbers). Even if the other units are arguably not better, they have enough things the iPhone doesn't to convince people. And they get even more from a boost from being on all carriers instead of just one like the iPhone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shogun
Lke they did with the iPod?
Like with the iPhone. Did you miss all the stories about iPhone losing market share and Android having big gains? The strategy is probably fine for mp3 players, but smartphones (and potentially tablets) are much more competitive.
"Though Apple typically follows an annual upgrade pattern for its devices, it was said that Apple could refresh the iPad line ahead of this year's holiday season. That person indicated that the FaceTime-equipped iPad was tracking for an introduction no later than the first quarter of 2011."
Is it me or is this a poor worded statement. In one part they saying that the iPad will be refreshed in for the holiday season and then immediately after it they are saying Q1.
Doesn't Apple's fiscal year start at the end of Sept./begining of Oct.? That would make Apple's Q1 the Oct-Dec timeframe which would make both statements true.
This rumour is pretty thin stuff and yet people are jumping all over it as the truth? I don't get it.
First, if you read this "article" closely, it's plain that the more factual based part (that manufacturers claim to be gearing up for production), has nothing in it that would indicate the presence of a *different* model of iPad with a front facing camera. The camera part of this rumour is the same one we've heard before, that "some people say" they've "heard" that it's in testing at Apple's campus.
Secondly, we haven't seen any field testing outside of Apple's campus at all nor any actual evidence that it's happening. There are no "iPad 2,1" identifies showing up anywhere as they would be expected to do.
Third, even if everything assumed here is true, the timing of the rumours about this model suggest nothing more than this being simply "next years iPad" and set for a release date exactly one year after the original.
Finally, if everything on the iPad stays more or less the same but they add a camera ... so what? Sure, it will make everyone on this forum happy, but it won't do anything to really change the market equation of iPad sales. To think that a tiny hardware spec bump will do much to the sales of iPads is just ridiculous. You people are getting in a tizzy over virtually nothing
The iPad sells as a viewer, a reader, a movie player, an audio player, etc.
It will certainly be great if it has a camera, but most of the people who bought it, didn't buy it to be a fancy video phone, and most won't use it for that. You can't use an iPad equipped with a camera to shoot movies effectively, and if you are into making videos, you'd probably be more enthused at the idea of running iMovie for iOS on the iPad, than using the iPads (no doubt) crappy VGA camera for anything.
Let's not forget the issue of printing. I have read so many contradictory stories about how this is going to be implemented it's just ridiculous.
And frankly, if I have to buy another printer besides the four I already have networked, I'll be waiting until the 3rd generation to buy an iPad. Having my iMac on and acting as a server doesn't make much sense either.
So much for those who defended the original exclusion.
We are privy to why apple excluded camera and other functionality from iPad, but people need to remember a few things.
1.
This is a rev one device. As such manufactutes are reluctant to expose themselves to to much risk until they understand consummer needs.
2.
It is obvious the software wasn't ready. This should be simple to understand, adding hardware that isn't supported via software leads to a number of issues for a company.
3.
Hardware for such a new device inevitably lags the state of the art due to being in development for a long time, possible years. This goes back to the comment about it being a rev one device.
4.
For many people a camera pointing out the front of the slate will deliver a sub optimal experience. So it is better to gain product acceptance before the obvious issues of trying to handhold such a large device for conferencing hits. In other words if the good qualities of a device are well known you can add additional functionality later with people wieghing the functions utility against the devices other qualities.
Quote:
They claimed that it would give "up the nose" shots of the speaker, and so Apple was wise to exclude the functionality.
It isn't a claim, it is a fact. It will not be as easy on the user as it will be to do a video Facetime conversation with a Touch or IPhone. That has nothing to do with Apple holding off though.
One of the reasons I'm still hoping to see an USB port on the iPads is to support a web camera device. This would decouple the camera from the iPad and make extended video Facetime connections easier for some.
Quote:
Maybe Apple had its own agenda for excluding the functionality?
Of course they do. No body likes it when I say the current iPad is very much a rev one device but it very much is. It isn't just the missing camera that was left out but a host of other things. For example there are pads for a gyro. Then there is the issue of RAM which is totally inadequate to run Safari much less many other apps.
The problem is people confuse pointing out these issues with dissing the iPad! That is not the case at all as it is a incredible first effort. Rather what we are saying is that I strongly doubt that the first rev even comes close to Apples vision for the device. They will be very aggressive in making sure rev 2 comes much closer to that vision. That implies a major overhaul.
I don't know whether people really want to buy a new iPad/iPhone every half year.
And just who would be stupid enough to do that? Really are people sobwanting for self control that they buy every release of every device from Apple? I really don't understand this train of thought especially when Apple bumps the laptop line about twice a year.
I'm currently still using my 3G iPhone and frankly will not go to an iPhone 4 until the battery dies. If I'm lucky that might be iPhone 5 time.
Quote:
Things things are also pretty expensive!
Which is why you as a consummer need to exercise restraint. It is like people missed the news here, part of our economic troubles are due directly excessive consummer debt. Self control is a wonderful thing.
Quote:
In addition, it's not just about hardware. When compared to Android, Apple has a shorter release cycle for iOS updates. E.g. the forthcoming 4.2 in November.
Yes this is all true. However why bother updating the iPad to 4.2 and its support of Facetime if the device doesn't support a camera?
This is the primary reason I see a minor iPad bump coming in November. Facetime isn't as salable if it is audio only. It might be a very minor bump, maybe just a camera and RAM, but it would seem very silly to market a device with software that can't be fully used because hardware is missing.
Maybe we need a show of hands here. Does it make sense for Apple to deliver 4.2 with an iPad without a Facetime camera?
Doesn't Apple's fiscal year start at the end of Sept./begining of Oct.? That would make Apple's Q1 the Oct-Dec timeframe which would make both statements true.
This rumour is pretty thin stuff and yet people are jumping all over it as the truth? I don't get it.
This is a rumor mill after all. But read between the lines about what Apple has said publically about iOS 4.2, all thoose features require more hardware than the current iPad provides. So if Facetime is coming to iPad in November a hardware update would almost have to be in the cards.
Quote:
First, if you read this "article" closely, it's plain that the more factual based part (that manufacturers claim to be gearing up for production), has nothing in it that would indicate the presence of a *different* model of iPad with a front facing camera. The camera part of this rumour is the same one we've heard before, that "some people say" they've "heard" that it's in testing at Apple's campus.
It is pretty silly to doubt that such a device is in testing considering Apples push with Facetime. However the fact that testing is going on has little to do with a possible November update. Apple could be easily testing multiple possible iPad updates or even entirely different models.
Quote:
Secondly, we haven't seen any field testing outside of Apple's campus at all nor any actual evidence that it's happening. There are no "iPad 2,1" identifies showing up anywhere as they would be expected to do.
You haven't seen them but that really means nothing. Especially after the last year when way to much info was revieled to the public via web logs.
Quote:
Third, even if everything assumed here is true, the timing of the rumours about this model suggest nothing more than this being simply "next years iPad" and set for a release date exactly one year after the original.
This is the business world, nothing is done on one year intervals these days. Why do you think Apple dropped out of Mac World and so many other trade shows are having trouble. Instead companies want to be able to respond to market conditions and deliver when new products are ready.
Quote:
Finally, if everything on the iPad stays more or less the same but they add a camera ... so what? Sure, it will make everyone on this forum happy, but it won't do anything to really change the market equation of iPad sales. To think that a tiny hardware spec bump will do much to the sales of iPads is just ridiculous. You people are getting in a tizzy over virtually nothing
I would have to say you have no idea how big Facetime could end up being. For people using iPad as a communications device it is huge. Sure the concept has to catch on but that is almost a given. Actually it will be interesting to see how Touch sales go now that it supports Facetime and colleges have started up again. Admittedly all the evidence isn't in yet and it will take a little time but I could see a lot of students buying a Touch in the next couple of months. On most campuses it would allow for very economical communications.
Quote:
The iPad sells as a viewer, a reader, a movie player, an audio player, etc.
Web access, E-Mail, Facetime, Facebook and a host of other services on iPad are best classified as communications technologies. Facetime is a more personal alternative to E-Mail and the phone. Just like we couldn't dismiss E-Mail or the old land line phone system when they where new, we have to look at Facetime as a newer and fresher way to communicate.
Quote:
It will certainly be great if it has a camera, but most of the people who bought it, didn't buy it to be a fancy video phone, and most won't use it for that. You can't use an iPad equipped with a camera to shoot movies effectively, and if you are into making videos, you'd probably be more enthused at the idea of running iMovie for iOS on the iPad, than using the iPads (no doubt) crappy VGA camera for anything.
Hey look at me, I was a little put back when Facetime came out, but after a bit of thought and reading the forums I realized Apple had something big on their hands. Facetime will drive sakes of Apple hardware and will do so for a couple of big reasons. One is that it is easy to use. Second it is on devices that are easy to handle. And third is very low cost.
I only know one thing for sure that is Apple announced that 4.2 is coming in November. Everything else is based off that one fact.
The iPad couldn't possibly be more successful and I'm sure Apple would expect to sell millions of the current version in the next few months. That means getting a handsome return for the investment in developing the product. Meanwhile there is zero pressure as we speak from any competitor. Devices are starting to appear but nothing remotely a threat to the iPad.
I think that Apple could gain from letting the first wave of responses to the iPad come out in the next couple of months. Let the competition set its sights on the current iPad and then in the first quarter of 2011 introduce a better version which raises the bar still higher. Why should Apple up the ante now before competitors have taken their first shot? Bringing out an iPad revision in the new year would easily allow Apple to remain one step ahead.
What I anticipate is that the next iPad will be thinner, lighter, have better battery life, more memory, a faster processor. I think these upgrades are pretty much a given. It will be interesting to see if this next version sports a higher resolution. There are trade-offs and upping the resolution does put more demands on all the accompanying hardware and raises issues re software. Still, Apple has opened the door with its trumpeting of the Retina display so we'll have to see if that's something that carries over to the iPad, though naturally a product with large a screen would never be able to reach the ppi range of the iPhone and Touch.
I think if we see just one upgrade, a lighter iPad definitely is top priority. Being a handheld device weight is a big deal. The current iPad is a fine device but it is a little on the heavy side for prolonged use. Even a modest weight reduction would be welcome.
Me and my friend are in an argument over when the 2G iPad will be released. He thinks that it will come out in November/December for the holidays, while I say that it will be released in April/May because of Apple's annual update plans.
Comments
I wouldn?t be complaining about a 264 ppi display that isn?t called a retina display. That is, afterall, a resolution of 2048x1536. That?s more horizontal lines than the 27? iMac and 80% of it vertical lines.
Fine with me - make it so!
Is it me or is this a poor worded statement. In one part they saying that the iPad will be refreshed in for the holiday season and then immediately after it they are saying Q1.
I'm reading this as [some other] people have speculated that the iPad will be refreshed for the holidays, but that this insider with the product plan knowledge is saying not so, instead they are aiming for Q1.
In the few years I have been following Apple, my experience is that apart from iPods Apple generally does not refresh before the holidays. The argument being that a change over of manufacturing lines right before the main rush of sales is too much risk. Apple rather sticks with what they know (and can easily sell) for the holidays. Then switch over production lines in the new year to build up production capability easily when demand is not so strong.
I fully expect to see the new iPad in Q1. Not in Q4.
That seems impossible to me. The iPad has 132 ppi along one axis. The iPhones had 163 ppi so when the doubled it it gave it 326 ppi. 20/20 vision seems to be considered the minimum level for what is a “retina display” which makes the minimum 286 ppi.
Now, doubling the iPad’s resolution (4x as many pixels overall) to 264 ppi would be great to have and would allow for the scaling that made it easy for iOS/App Store developers, but it would still be 22 ppi lower than the minimum they could feasibly call a retina display if they are basing it on 20/20 vision.
Of course they could trademark the term since they apparently made it up or move the goal posts since even 20/22 or better vision is still the minority, but that will have to dealt with if and when the redesign what retina display means.
Well, remember, the "Retina" designation for the iPhone screen is for 12" from your eye, so, at say, 18", not an unreasonable distance, an iPad with 264ppi should qualify just fine. (I'm not bothering to do the math to determine the exact distance it would apply, but, probably under 18".)
Well, remember, the "Retina" designation for the iPhone screen is for 12" from your eye, so, at say, 18", not an unreasonable distance, an iPad with 264ppi should qualify just fine.
Excellent point! I had just assumed 12” for the minimum, but it could be argued that you’d hold a tablet farther away than a phone. I’m not going to do the math on this one either as I’m about to head off on a flight but I think that even less than 18” away would get you to that Retina Display designation with a 264 ppi display.
Apple's overseas touch panel and reinforced glass suppliers are said to be preparing for the launch of Apple's second-generation iPad in the first quarter of 2011.
According to Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes, the suppliers are completing validation for the second-generation iPad, which will maintain the same 9.7-inch screen when it debuts in the first quarter of 2011.
"Component suppliers of iPad are expected to start shipments for the second-generation iPad at the beginning of 2011," the report said.
Specifically cited suppliers were TPK Touch Solutions, WinTek, Cando, Cimei Innolux. Together, they are said to be validating "ultra-thin glass-based touch panels with Apple."
As reported last week by AppleInsider, Apple plans to move aggressively on adding FaceTime functionality to its entire line of iOS devices, leaving the iPad as the last device to receive the upgrade. A person with proven knowledge of the company's future plans indicated that an iPad equipped with a forward facing camera is already in the advanced testing stages at Apple.
Though Apple typically follows an annual upgrade pattern for its devices, it was said that Apple could refresh the iPad line ahead of this year's holiday season. That person indicated that the FaceTime-equipped iPad was tracking for an introduction no later than the first quarter of 2011.
FaceTime is Apple's open standard for video chat. Currently available on the iPhone 4 and fourth-generation iPod touch, it requires Wi-Fi to operate.
This rumour is pretty thin stuff and yet people are jumping all over it as the truth? I don't get it.
First, if you read this "article" closely, it's plain that the more factual based part (that manufacturers claim to be gearing up for production), has nothing in it that would indicate the presence of a *different* model of iPad with a front facing camera. The camera part of this rumour is the same one we've heard before, that "some people say" they've "heard" that it's in testing at Apple's campus.
Secondly, we haven't seen any field testing outside of Apple's campus at all nor any actual evidence that it's happening. There are no "iPad 2,1" identifies showing up anywhere as they would be expected to do.
Third, even if everything assumed here is true, the timing of the rumours about this model suggest nothing more than this being simply "next years iPad" and set for a release date exactly one year after the original.
Finally, if everything on the iPad stays more or less the same but they add a camera ... so what? Sure, it will make everyone on this forum happy, but it won't do anything to really change the market equation of iPad sales. To think that a tiny hardware spec bump will do much to the sales of iPads is just ridiculous. You people are getting in a tizzy over virtually nothing
The iPad sells as a viewer, a reader, a movie player, an audio player, etc.
It will certainly be great if it has a camera, but most of the people who bought it, didn't buy it to be a fancy video phone, and most won't use it for that. You can't use an iPad equipped with a camera to shoot movies effectively, and if you are into making videos, you'd probably be more enthused at the idea of running iMovie for iOS on the iPad, than using the iPads (no doubt) crappy VGA camera for anything.
Two reasons for me: I would use it to surf, but it cannot access most web video.
I think right now 'most web video' is already stretching it. YouTube videos play, vimeo videos play, there's hulu and netflix app, etc. Really, since I got my iPad, the number of videos I can't play on it has been rapidly decreasing.
Just like with the iPhone, they will only catch up on spec lists, if even there (how long till iPhone competitors actually have Retina equivalent displays, for example). They won't catch up on overall design, build quality and, most importantly, software and user experience.
Whether you agree with that or not, the numbers out there sure seem to suggest that the one year gap between refreshes is long enough for the competition to gain some ground on sales of units (at least based on recent iPhone numbers). Even if the other units are arguably not better, they have enough things the iPhone doesn't to convince people. And they get even more from a boost from being on all carriers instead of just one like the iPhone.
Lke they did with the iPod?
Like with the iPhone. Did you miss all the stories about iPhone losing market share and Android having big gains? The strategy is probably fine for mp3 players, but smartphones (and potentially tablets) are much more competitive.
"Though Apple typically follows an annual upgrade pattern for its devices, it was said that Apple could refresh the iPad line ahead of this year's holiday season. That person indicated that the FaceTime-equipped iPad was tracking for an introduction no later than the first quarter of 2011."
Is it me or is this a poor worded statement. In one part they saying that the iPad will be refreshed in for the holiday season and then immediately after it they are saying Q1.
Doesn't Apple's fiscal year start at the end of Sept./begining of Oct.? That would make Apple's Q1 the Oct-Dec timeframe which would make both statements true.
This rumour is pretty thin stuff and yet people are jumping all over it as the truth? I don't get it.
First, if you read this "article" closely, it's plain that the more factual based part (that manufacturers claim to be gearing up for production), has nothing in it that would indicate the presence of a *different* model of iPad with a front facing camera. The camera part of this rumour is the same one we've heard before, that "some people say" they've "heard" that it's in testing at Apple's campus.
Secondly, we haven't seen any field testing outside of Apple's campus at all nor any actual evidence that it's happening. There are no "iPad 2,1" identifies showing up anywhere as they would be expected to do.
Third, even if everything assumed here is true, the timing of the rumours about this model suggest nothing more than this being simply "next years iPad" and set for a release date exactly one year after the original.
Finally, if everything on the iPad stays more or less the same but they add a camera ... so what? Sure, it will make everyone on this forum happy, but it won't do anything to really change the market equation of iPad sales. To think that a tiny hardware spec bump will do much to the sales of iPads is just ridiculous. You people are getting in a tizzy over virtually nothing
The iPad sells as a viewer, a reader, a movie player, an audio player, etc.
It will certainly be great if it has a camera, but most of the people who bought it, didn't buy it to be a fancy video phone, and most won't use it for that. You can't use an iPad equipped with a camera to shoot movies effectively, and if you are into making videos, you'd probably be more enthused at the idea of running iMovie for iOS on the iPad, than using the iPads (no doubt) crappy VGA camera for anything.
Let's not forget the issue of printing. I have read so many contradictory stories about how this is going to be implemented it's just ridiculous.
And frankly, if I have to buy another printer besides the four I already have networked, I'll be waiting until the 3rd generation to buy an iPad. Having my iMac on and acting as a server doesn't make much sense either.
So much for those who defended the original exclusion.
We are privy to why apple excluded camera and other functionality from iPad, but people need to remember a few things.
1.
This is a rev one device. As such manufactutes are reluctant to expose themselves to to much risk until they understand consummer needs.
2.
It is obvious the software wasn't ready. This should be simple to understand, adding hardware that isn't supported via software leads to a number of issues for a company.
3.
Hardware for such a new device inevitably lags the state of the art due to being in development for a long time, possible years. This goes back to the comment about it being a rev one device.
4.
For many people a camera pointing out the front of the slate will deliver a sub optimal experience. So it is better to gain product acceptance before the obvious issues of trying to handhold such a large device for conferencing hits. In other words if the good qualities of a device are well known you can add additional functionality later with people wieghing the functions utility against the devices other qualities.
They claimed that it would give "up the nose" shots of the speaker, and so Apple was wise to exclude the functionality.
It isn't a claim, it is a fact. It will not be as easy on the user as it will be to do a video Facetime conversation with a Touch or IPhone. That has nothing to do with Apple holding off though.
One of the reasons I'm still hoping to see an USB port on the iPads is to support a web camera device. This would decouple the camera from the iPad and make extended video Facetime connections easier for some.
Maybe Apple had its own agenda for excluding the functionality?
Of course they do. No body likes it when I say the current iPad is very much a rev one device but it very much is. It isn't just the missing camera that was left out but a host of other things. For example there are pads for a gyro. Then there is the issue of RAM which is totally inadequate to run Safari much less many other apps.
The problem is people confuse pointing out these issues with dissing the iPad! That is not the case at all as it is a incredible first effort. Rather what we are saying is that I strongly doubt that the first rev even comes close to Apples vision for the device. They will be very aggressive in making sure rev 2 comes much closer to that vision. That implies a major overhaul.
Dave
I don't know whether people really want to buy a new iPad/iPhone every half year.
And just who would be stupid enough to do that? Really are people sobwanting for self control that they buy every release of every device from Apple? I really don't understand this train of thought especially when Apple bumps the laptop line about twice a year.
I'm currently still using my 3G iPhone and frankly will not go to an iPhone 4 until the battery dies. If I'm lucky that might be iPhone 5 time.
Things things are also pretty expensive!
Which is why you as a consummer need to exercise restraint. It is like people missed the news here, part of our economic troubles are due directly excessive consummer debt. Self control is a wonderful thing.
In addition, it's not just about hardware. When compared to Android, Apple has a shorter release cycle for iOS updates. E.g. the forthcoming 4.2 in November.
Yes this is all true. However why bother updating the iPad to 4.2 and its support of Facetime if the device doesn't support a camera?
This is the primary reason I see a minor iPad bump coming in November. Facetime isn't as salable if it is audio only. It might be a very minor bump, maybe just a camera and RAM, but it would seem very silly to market a device with software that can't be fully used because hardware is missing.
Maybe we need a show of hands here. Does it make sense for Apple to deliver 4.2 with an iPad without a Facetime camera?
Doesn't Apple's fiscal year start at the end of Sept./begining of Oct.? That would make Apple's Q1 the Oct-Dec timeframe which would make both statements true.
Give this man a dollar.
This rumour is pretty thin stuff and yet people are jumping all over it as the truth? I don't get it.
This is a rumor mill after all. But read between the lines about what Apple has said publically about iOS 4.2, all thoose features require more hardware than the current iPad provides. So if Facetime is coming to iPad in November a hardware update would almost have to be in the cards.
First, if you read this "article" closely, it's plain that the more factual based part (that manufacturers claim to be gearing up for production), has nothing in it that would indicate the presence of a *different* model of iPad with a front facing camera. The camera part of this rumour is the same one we've heard before, that "some people say" they've "heard" that it's in testing at Apple's campus.
It is pretty silly to doubt that such a device is in testing considering Apples push with Facetime. However the fact that testing is going on has little to do with a possible November update. Apple could be easily testing multiple possible iPad updates or even entirely different models.
Secondly, we haven't seen any field testing outside of Apple's campus at all nor any actual evidence that it's happening. There are no "iPad 2,1" identifies showing up anywhere as they would be expected to do.
You haven't seen them but that really means nothing. Especially after the last year when way to much info was revieled to the public via web logs.
Third, even if everything assumed here is true, the timing of the rumours about this model suggest nothing more than this being simply "next years iPad" and set for a release date exactly one year after the original.
This is the business world, nothing is done on one year intervals these days. Why do you think Apple dropped out of Mac World and so many other trade shows are having trouble. Instead companies want to be able to respond to market conditions and deliver when new products are ready.
Finally, if everything on the iPad stays more or less the same but they add a camera ... so what? Sure, it will make everyone on this forum happy, but it won't do anything to really change the market equation of iPad sales. To think that a tiny hardware spec bump will do much to the sales of iPads is just ridiculous. You people are getting in a tizzy over virtually nothing
I would have to say you have no idea how big Facetime could end up being. For people using iPad as a communications device it is huge. Sure the concept has to catch on but that is almost a given. Actually it will be interesting to see how Touch sales go now that it supports Facetime and colleges have started up again. Admittedly all the evidence isn't in yet and it will take a little time but I could see a lot of students buying a Touch in the next couple of months. On most campuses it would allow for very economical communications.
The iPad sells as a viewer, a reader, a movie player, an audio player, etc.
Web access, E-Mail, Facetime, Facebook and a host of other services on iPad are best classified as communications technologies. Facetime is a more personal alternative to E-Mail and the phone. Just like we couldn't dismiss E-Mail or the old land line phone system when they where new, we have to look at Facetime as a newer and fresher way to communicate.
It will certainly be great if it has a camera, but most of the people who bought it, didn't buy it to be a fancy video phone, and most won't use it for that. You can't use an iPad equipped with a camera to shoot movies effectively, and if you are into making videos, you'd probably be more enthused at the idea of running iMovie for iOS on the iPad, than using the iPads (no doubt) crappy VGA camera for anything.
Hey look at me, I was a little put back when Facetime came out, but after a bit of thought and reading the forums I realized Apple had something big on their hands. Facetime will drive sakes of Apple hardware and will do so for a couple of big reasons. One is that it is easy to use. Second it is on devices that are easy to handle. And third is very low cost.
I only know one thing for sure that is Apple announced that 4.2 is coming in November. Everything else is based off that one fact.
I think that Apple could gain from letting the first wave of responses to the iPad come out in the next couple of months. Let the competition set its sights on the current iPad and then in the first quarter of 2011 introduce a better version which raises the bar still higher. Why should Apple up the ante now before competitors have taken their first shot? Bringing out an iPad revision in the new year would easily allow Apple to remain one step ahead.
What I anticipate is that the next iPad will be thinner, lighter, have better battery life, more memory, a faster processor. I think these upgrades are pretty much a given. It will be interesting to see if this next version sports a higher resolution. There are trade-offs and upping the resolution does put more demands on all the accompanying hardware and raises issues re software. Still, Apple has opened the door with its trumpeting of the Retina display so we'll have to see if that's something that carries over to the iPad, though naturally a product with large a screen would never be able to reach the ppi range of the iPhone and Touch.
I think if we see just one upgrade, a lighter iPad definitely is top priority. Being a handheld device weight is a big deal. The current iPad is a fine device but it is a little on the heavy side for prolonged use. Even a modest weight reduction would be welcome.
makes me uninterested in an iPad.
And yet you troll iPad threads incessently