I'm not sure Apple is prepared to move that quickly when the product is still selling as quickly as they can make them. I expect only modest improvements (512MB, low res cameras) for iPad 2. By the third year more radical changes might be possible.
It took 4 generations for Apple to make a radical change to the iPhone, but I think they'll move faster with the iPad.
Now, Apple's got to keep up. The Samsung's got two bad cameras. Apple will want to do better. They have to do better if the want to keep their place. If word is correct that we'll be seeing a dual core Cortex 9 for the next one, I would hate to see Apple waste that power with too little RAM. Developers who want to do video editing and photo editing need that RAM. If Apple waits another year, others will give it.
In fact, I really think that Apple's on the verge of blowing in in a number of areas. They've got to listen more, and cross their arms less.
RAM is the cheapest thing in the world. I know every penny counts when you're pushing millions of units out the door, but damn, this isn't 2004. Pared-down OS or not, Apple is selling people a device that is essentially a keyboard-less MacBook. If Apple is going to sell them a sealed-box solution, then they should at least know they're getting more than the bare minimum.
The current iPad is expected to cease production in January, Abramsky said, when production of the new hardware will begin. Abramsky expects the second-generation iPad to debut between February and March with FaceTime front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as "beefed up" internal components.
I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose. A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad. But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer. Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
RAM is the cheapest thing in the world. I know every penny counts when you're pushing millions of units out the door, but damn, this isn't 2004. Pared-down OS or not, Apple is selling people a device that is essentially a keyboard-less MacBook. If Apple is going to sell them a sealed-box solution, then they should at least know they're getting more than the bare minimum.
Maybe not as cheap as you think. Even if it added $10 to the selling price, that could be unacceptable.
I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose. A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad. But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer. Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
Since the Samsung has them, and no doubt others will as well. It's not so farfetched. Besides, do you look above the camera? No, you'll look at the screen.
Apple's case works well in holding the iPad at two different angles. Even the low typing angle works well for this on a desk. I've got it right in front of me. You look slightly down at the screen, and your head is parallel with the screen, just as it should be. All is well.
What will you post here when the next model has at least a front camera?
I haven't noticed those who were saying so definitely that it only needed 256MB memory because that's all Apple put into it, recanting.
Oh no, here we go again. I think it?s time I put you on my ignore list. I?ve never thought of you as a troll, Samab, but your rhetoric isn?t making for a useful or enjoyable forum discussions. Later.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you there. "Apple is trying to destroy the internet" is one of those memes that's so foolish on the face of it the only reason I can think for trotting it out is just to be sort of a dick about Apple.
It's a shame, because I think Samab can make some reasonable arguments, but this kind of thing is just tiresome.
If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones,
Something their contracts with the Android phones might not allow.
So it is possible that they would have to have a 'silent' release of the iphone. Assuming that there is one any time in the next couple of years.
I am not going to be shocked if there are stories about contract issues etc in a couple of months. Things that could 'delay' the release. Or rather cover up the fact that there was never going to be one this year. Typical Tabloid Tactic. Same game they play when a rumored couple is rumored to be having trouble and rumored to have broken up.
Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.
Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.
How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.
The majority of my friends who want an iPhone but don't want AT&T are still holding out. I can think of half a dozen. Half of those have bought an Android phone.
Realistic CDMA adjusted numbers? Maybe they are thinking that some people will forgoe the CDMA iPhone 4 and wait for the 5th generation. Just a guess.
I agree- I think this is it. It is going to be difficult for me to decide, although I am about to go nuts- I can't get tets in Chapman LAw School int eh middle of Orange County!
I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose.
While I agree that the camera will often produce a less than flattering view, Facetime is still a huge initiative on Apples part. Besides for the vain the iPad would be giving you co tinous feedback about how you look.
Quote:
A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad.
Apple does a lot of stupid things with cameras. The lack of a "shutter release" on the iPhone really sucks for example. Honestly I think Apple will do one of two things. The most likely would be to leave the rear facing camera out. The second option would be to go with a significantly better camera with a good lens.
Quote:
But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.
You don't know if Apples reason was good or not. There are many possible reasons including risk avoidance.
Quote:
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer.
Well this is obvious but it is also not a problem. People have already announced prototype ARM core built on 22nm tech. Now I don't expect Apple to take on that node for iPad 2 but the still have options for an Cortex A9 based SoC. Dual core should be very easy due to the cores requiring maybe 500 milli watts at full orocessing power. That core power number is highly variable though due to whatever process is finally choosen.
Quote:
Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
I agree that they won't crap on the battery life any more than the have to. However battery life is a spec just like everything else. Frankly I don't even see the processor as the biggest issue with iPad, rather it is the lack of user RAM that is a big issue especially as it inhibits developers to much. That and it is pretty pathetic that iPhone 4 has more RAM than iPad right now.
So yeah beefing up iPad won't be done without keeping an eye on power usage. That however is not a problem. Think about how long ago PA Semi and Intrinsity where purchased and then add a couple of years to that. This should give you a realative idea about how old the iPads processor tech is. The development tools should be fairly well proven by now so they should be able to focus more on integration and performance. The A4 right now is a rather simple SoC, they have had the time to do a much more complex solution.
I know some get indignant when I say this but the A4 is looking rather poor up against the new Cortex A9 based processors hitting the street. Simply put Apple will have to do something soon.
Anyone think Apple will continue production on iPad1 and drop the price while letting iPad2 take over it's current price point? That move would surely destroy the 7" tablets under-cutting the 499$ price point.
It is very possible. From what I can see Apple has plenty of room to lower the price of the current iPad. As far as the competition and claims that they can't beat Apple in pricing that is mostly BS.
Quote:
Either way, it looks like iPad2 will be announced right before Blackberry releases Playbook1.
Most likely. I actually think Playbook will be the long tern competition piece for iPad. Blackberry bought out the owners of QNX for an OS to use on this device. QNX is nothing to sneeze at at all. The real challenge for Blackberry will be the development of a good native SDK. If they do the SDK right I can see them being stiffer competition for Apple than the Android market. Google could potentially clean up the Android market but does not appear to be motivated to do so.
So while Playbook mwy be laughed at for six months to a year it will be a different story when a viable SDK comes out. This is no different that when the iPhone first came out. The big difference was that Apple had the freedom to throw a lot of people at SDK develoment where as Blackberry is a much smaller company with more limited resources. Watching what happens with Playbook over the next year will be very interesting. It is a bit of an underdog but that is what makes it interesting.
Most likely. I actually think Playbook will be the long tern competition piece for iPad. Blackberry bought out the owners of QNX for an OS to use on this device. QNX is nothing to sneeze at at all. The real challenge for Blackberry will be the development of a good native SDK. If they do the SDK right I can see them being stiffer competition for Apple than the Android market. Google could potentially clean up the Android market but does not appear to be motivated to do so.
So while Playbook mwy be laughed at for six months to a year it will be a different story when a viable SDK comes out. This is no different that when the iPhone first came out. The big difference was that Apple had the freedom to throw a lot of people at SDK develoment where as Blackberry is a much smaller company with more limited resources. Watching what happens with Playbook over the next year will be very interesting. It is a bit of an underdog but that is what makes it interesting.
Well, interesting points:
- The Playbook has got no 3G connectivity on its own, it will only tether with a Blackberry. This limits the target audience, even without knowing how much carriers will charge for that honor...
- If RIM would be serious about releasing a "good native SDK" anytime soon, why would Jim Balsilly (some day I have to investigate what's fundamentally wrong with CEOs starting with "Bal") make so much noise about how terrible apps are, and that everything can be done in the browser? Basically the "sweet solution" that even Jobs could not sell in 2007... App development on the Playbook will be mainly a Flash/Air thing as far as I can see... amateur hour.
- I have no hard numbers, but production capacities for the CPU RIM is using are said to be quite limited for the first quarter of 2011. If they really want to stay below $500 without subsidy and deliver significant numbers, I would not expect wide availability any earlier than, say, April or May... The question is how many more tablet announcements we will hear until then, and who will even remember the Playbook...
IMHO there are two tablet competitors with at least some chances: HP with WebOS (if original HP staff has no say in it) and MS, if they drop that "Windows 7 is for tablets" mantra and bring Windows Phone 7 to the tablet... splitting the few touch developers they have (bribed) between two platforms is nonsensical at a point in time where Windows 7 on the tablet is nowhere, and WP7 still has no market share worth talking about.
Comments
I'm not sure Apple is prepared to move that quickly when the product is still selling as quickly as they can make them. I expect only modest improvements (512MB, low res cameras) for iPad 2. By the third year more radical changes might be possible.
It took 4 generations for Apple to make a radical change to the iPhone, but I think they'll move faster with the iPad.
Now, Apple's got to keep up. The Samsung's got two bad cameras. Apple will want to do better. They have to do better if the want to keep their place. If word is correct that we'll be seeing a dual core Cortex 9 for the next one, I would hate to see Apple waste that power with too little RAM. Developers who want to do video editing and photo editing need that RAM. If Apple waits another year, others will give it.
In fact, I really think that Apple's on the verge of blowing in in a number of areas. They've got to listen more, and cross their arms less.
The current iPad is expected to cease production in January, Abramsky said, when production of the new hardware will begin. Abramsky expects the second-generation iPad to debut between February and March with FaceTime front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as "beefed up" internal components.
I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose. A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad. But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer. Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
RAM is the cheapest thing in the world. I know every penny counts when you're pushing millions of units out the door, but damn, this isn't 2004. Pared-down OS or not, Apple is selling people a device that is essentially a keyboard-less MacBook. If Apple is going to sell them a sealed-box solution, then they should at least know they're getting more than the bare minimum.
Maybe not as cheap as you think. Even if it added $10 to the selling price, that could be unacceptable.
I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose. A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad. But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer. Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
Since the Samsung has them, and no doubt others will as well. It's not so farfetched. Besides, do you look above the camera? No, you'll look at the screen.
Apple's case works well in holding the iPad at two different angles. Even the low typing angle works well for this on a desk. I've got it right in front of me. You look slightly down at the screen, and your head is parallel with the screen, just as it should be. All is well.
What will you post here when the next model has at least a front camera?
I haven't noticed those who were saying so definitely that it only needed 256MB memory because that's all Apple put into it, recanting.
Oh no, here we go again. I think it?s time I put you on my ignore list. I?ve never thought of you as a troll, Samab, but your rhetoric isn?t making for a useful or enjoyable forum discussions. Later.
Yeah, I'm going to have to agree with you there. "Apple is trying to destroy the internet" is one of those memes that's so foolish on the face of it the only reason I can think for trotting it out is just to be sort of a dick about Apple.
It's a shame, because I think Samab can make some reasonable arguments, but this kind of thing is just tiresome.
Wow, what an old kind of thinking.
Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.
Interesting: http://techcrunch.com/2010/09/11/the-verizon-iphone/
If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones,
Something their contracts with the Android phones might not allow.
So it is possible that they would have to have a 'silent' release of the iphone. Assuming that there is one any time in the next couple of years.
I am not going to be shocked if there are stories about contract issues etc in a couple of months. Things that could 'delay' the release. Or rather cover up the fact that there was never going to be one this year. Typical Tabloid Tactic. Same game they play when a rumored couple is rumored to be having trouble and rumored to have broken up.
RAM is the cheapest thing in the world.
So why do I still not have 64 gigs of RAM in my Mac Pro? OH. I KNOW. BECAUSE IT'S 2,099 DOLLARS.
And it'll hit an artificial low and then start going back up in price as my machine ages. Your statement is folly.
20 million Verizon iPhones, ha!
Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.
Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.
How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.
The majority of my friends who want an iPhone but don't want AT&T are still holding out. I can think of half a dozen. Half of those have bought an Android phone.
Realistic CDMA adjusted numbers? Maybe they are thinking that some people will forgoe the CDMA iPhone 4 and wait for the 5th generation. Just a guess.
I agree- I think this is it. It is going to be difficult for me to decide, although I am about to go nuts- I can't get tets in Chapman LAw School int eh middle of Orange County!
I don't believe this "analyst". A front facing camera would show a view up the nose.
While I agree that the camera will often produce a less than flattering view, Facetime is still a huge initiative on Apples part. Besides for the vain the iPad would be giving you co tinous feedback about how you look.
A rear facing camera wouldn't work well on such a large device. If cameras were a good idea, Apple would have included them on the iPad.
Apple does a lot of stupid things with cameras. The lack of a "shutter release" on the iPhone really sucks for example. Honestly I think Apple will do one of two things. The most likely would be to leave the rear facing camera out. The second option would be to go with a significantly better camera with a good lens.
But Apple decided, for very good reasons, that they would NOT include cameras on the iPad.
You don't know if Apples reason was good or not. There are many possible reasons including risk avoidance.
And the internal components will be "beefed up" ONLY if the battery life will not suffer.
Well this is obvious but it is also not a problem. People have already announced prototype ARM core built on 22nm tech. Now I don't expect Apple to take on that node for iPad 2 but the still have options for an Cortex A9 based SoC. Dual core should be very easy due to the cores requiring maybe 500 milli watts at full orocessing power. That core power number is highly variable though due to whatever process is finally choosen.
Apple will not compromise on its 10 hour battery life just so they can quote some spec.
I agree that they won't crap on the battery life any more than the have to. However battery life is a spec just like everything else. Frankly I don't even see the processor as the biggest issue with iPad, rather it is the lack of user RAM that is a big issue especially as it inhibits developers to much. That and it is pretty pathetic that iPhone 4 has more RAM than iPad right now.
So yeah beefing up iPad won't be done without keeping an eye on power usage. That however is not a problem. Think about how long ago PA Semi and Intrinsity where purchased and then add a couple of years to that. This should give you a realative idea about how old the iPads processor tech is. The development tools should be fairly well proven by now so they should be able to focus more on integration and performance. The A4 right now is a rather simple SoC, they have had the time to do a much more complex solution.
I know some get indignant when I say this but the A4 is looking rather poor up against the new Cortex A9 based processors hitting the street. Simply put Apple will have to do something soon.
Anyone think Apple will continue production on iPad1 and drop the price while letting iPad2 take over it's current price point? That move would surely destroy the 7" tablets under-cutting the 499$ price point.
It is very possible. From what I can see Apple has plenty of room to lower the price of the current iPad. As far as the competition and claims that they can't beat Apple in pricing that is mostly BS.
Either way, it looks like iPad2 will be announced right before Blackberry releases Playbook1.
Most likely. I actually think Playbook will be the long tern competition piece for iPad. Blackberry bought out the owners of QNX for an OS to use on this device. QNX is nothing to sneeze at at all. The real challenge for Blackberry will be the development of a good native SDK. If they do the SDK right I can see them being stiffer competition for Apple than the Android market. Google could potentially clean up the Android market but does not appear to be motivated to do so.
So while Playbook mwy be laughed at for six months to a year it will be a different story when a viable SDK comes out. This is no different that when the iPhone first came out. The big difference was that Apple had the freedom to throw a lot of people at SDK develoment where as Blackberry is a much smaller company with more limited resources. Watching what happens with Playbook over the next year will be very interesting. It is a bit of an underdog but that is what makes it interesting.
Most likely. I actually think Playbook will be the long tern competition piece for iPad. Blackberry bought out the owners of QNX for an OS to use on this device. QNX is nothing to sneeze at at all. The real challenge for Blackberry will be the development of a good native SDK. If they do the SDK right I can see them being stiffer competition for Apple than the Android market. Google could potentially clean up the Android market but does not appear to be motivated to do so.
So while Playbook mwy be laughed at for six months to a year it will be a different story when a viable SDK comes out. This is no different that when the iPhone first came out. The big difference was that Apple had the freedom to throw a lot of people at SDK develoment where as Blackberry is a much smaller company with more limited resources. Watching what happens with Playbook over the next year will be very interesting. It is a bit of an underdog but that is what makes it interesting.
Well, interesting points:
- The Playbook has got no 3G connectivity on its own, it will only tether with a Blackberry. This limits the target audience, even without knowing how much carriers will charge for that honor...
- If RIM would be serious about releasing a "good native SDK" anytime soon, why would Jim Balsilly (some day I have to investigate what's fundamentally wrong with CEOs starting with "Bal") make so much noise about how terrible apps are, and that everything can be done in the browser? Basically the "sweet solution" that even Jobs could not sell in 2007... App development on the Playbook will be mainly a Flash/Air thing as far as I can see... amateur hour.
- I have no hard numbers, but production capacities for the CPU RIM is using are said to be quite limited for the first quarter of 2011. If they really want to stay below $500 without subsidy and deliver significant numbers, I would not expect wide availability any earlier than, say, April or May... The question is how many more tablet announcements we will hear until then, and who will even remember the Playbook...
IMHO there are two tablet competitors with at least some chances: HP with WebOS (if original HP staff has no say in it) and MS, if they drop that "Windows 7 is for tablets" mantra and bring Windows Phone 7 to the tablet... splitting the few touch developers they have (bribed) between two platforms is nonsensical at a point in time where Windows 7 on the tablet is nowhere, and WP7 still has no market share worth talking about.