Apple's next-gen iPad to have three models, including CDMA - rumor
In addition to the existing Wi-Fi-only and UMTS models, Apple's forthcoming second-generation iPad will also have a third, Verizon-compatible CDMA version, according to a new rumor.
Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes reported Tuesday that Apple is expected to build Wi-Fi, UMTS and CDMA models of the next iPad in a respective build ratio of 3:4:3. Production of the device is expected to start as early as the first half of January, with about a half-million iPads expected to be assembled.
Citing industry sources, the report claimed that between 60 and 65 percent of current iPad shipments are the UMTS 3G model. Because of this, Apple is expected to work even more closely with wireless partners for the second-generation tablet.
"In addition to wireless functions, Apple is also working on strengthening the iPad 2's anti-smudge and anti-reflective treatments in order to compete against Kindle and attract more consumers," the report said.
Sources estimated that Apple will produce about 40 million iPads in 2011, accounting for as much as three-quarters of the tablet market. That estimate is significantly lower than the 6 million per month capacity reported by DigiTimes earlier this month.
The report also indicated that Apple is expected to have shipped about 16 million iPads in 2010, and between 2 million and 3 million units will remain in the channel at the start of 2011. That number is expected to satisfy demand as Apple gradually stops production of the first-generation device, in time for the debut of "iPad 2."
Earlier this month, DigiTimes reported that Apple passed on an active-matrix organic LED display in its second-generation iPad because of constrained supplies of the displays. Those insufficient supplies have allegedly prompted Apple to stick with a backlit LCD display for the forthcoming device.
Taiwanese industry publication DigiTimes reported Tuesday that Apple is expected to build Wi-Fi, UMTS and CDMA models of the next iPad in a respective build ratio of 3:4:3. Production of the device is expected to start as early as the first half of January, with about a half-million iPads expected to be assembled.
Citing industry sources, the report claimed that between 60 and 65 percent of current iPad shipments are the UMTS 3G model. Because of this, Apple is expected to work even more closely with wireless partners for the second-generation tablet.
"In addition to wireless functions, Apple is also working on strengthening the iPad 2's anti-smudge and anti-reflective treatments in order to compete against Kindle and attract more consumers," the report said.
Sources estimated that Apple will produce about 40 million iPads in 2011, accounting for as much as three-quarters of the tablet market. That estimate is significantly lower than the 6 million per month capacity reported by DigiTimes earlier this month.
The report also indicated that Apple is expected to have shipped about 16 million iPads in 2010, and between 2 million and 3 million units will remain in the channel at the start of 2011. That number is expected to satisfy demand as Apple gradually stops production of the first-generation device, in time for the debut of "iPad 2."
Earlier this month, DigiTimes reported that Apple passed on an active-matrix organic LED display in its second-generation iPad because of constrained supplies of the displays. Those insufficient supplies have allegedly prompted Apple to stick with a backlit LCD display for the forthcoming device.
Comments
I'm looking forward to an iPad with cameras and GPS. Beyond those two features, nothing is going to get me all that excited. I don't think the next version of the iPad will be revolutionary, just evolutionary... which isn't a bad thing. The first version of the iPad is absolutely solid.
Considering Apple preferes to have ONE model of phone (plus the old model), it could likely be CDMA and GSM compatible. So will the iPad.
I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.
Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".
While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:
? front-facing camera for FaceTime
? faster A? processor
? increased SSD (Flash) storage
? thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
? Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)
Less likely but highly desired:
? Retina display
? SD card slot
And my #1 feature request:
? SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! Currently, the iPad syncs one users? Mail, iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and Safari bookmarks which doesn?t work very well for a shared family device. Sure, other family members can access most of THEIR content through the internet such as webmail, but it is not an ideal solution. The current configuration also doesn't allow for much privacy or parental controls. If the device is unlocked for a child to play games on, he/she can accidentally delete emails, etc. I don't believe Apple would lose sales as some claim by supporting multiple users. Quite the opposite; I would rather have several iPads in various rooms of the house that any family member can log into than have user-specific iPads that family members always had to keep track of. A iPhone is a personal device. An iPad SHOULD BE a SHARED device.
Considering Apple preferes to have ONE model of phone (plus the old model), it could likely be CDMA and GSM compatible.
This is not possible with the size constraints and power efficiency required for the iPhone 4? at least looking at all the world mode chips I do know about which, ironically, cover less bands than the current iPhone.
So will the iPad.
Looking at the iPad?s internals this would be possible in that space, however there are cost and power usage issues to consider, not to mention how the space changes if Apple changes the iPad?s design.
They?d have to weigh all these factors against the number of people who would switch their devices between carriers to see if it warrants all those hits against their next device. Since the iPad is the only item with cellular radios they?ve chosen to not lock to any carrier it?s really the only one who has a chance, but I wouldn?t bet money on it.
It wouldn't surprise me, but the data plans out there are still very expensive and wifi is becoming ubiquitous anywhere I would use one.
I'm looking forward to an iPad with cameras and GPS. Beyond those two features, nothing is going to get me all that excited. I don't think the next version of the iPad will be revolutionary, just evolutionary... which isn't a bad thing. The first version of the iPad is absolutely solid.
I don't care so much about the cameras and GPS, but I would like it to be faster (I'd like PDF rendering to be instantaneous) and I like the rumors of a flat back (the rounded back was an odd choice).
Can't say I'd be surprised with the addition of a CDMA-capable iPad -- it only makes good business sense.
I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.
Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".
While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:
? front-facing camera for FaceTime
? faster A? processor
? increased SSD (Flash) storage
? thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
? Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)
Less likely but highly desired:
? Retina display
? SD card slot
And my #1 feature request:
? SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! Currently, the iPad syncs one users? Mail, iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and Safari bookmarks which doesn?t work very well for a shared family device. Sure, other family members can access most of THEIR content through the internet such as webmail, but it is not an ideal solution. The current configuration also doesn't allow for much privacy or parental controls. If the device is unlocked for a child to play games on, he/she can accidentally delete emails, etc. I don't believe Apple would lose sales as some claim by supporting multiple users. Quite the opposite; I would rather have several iPads in various rooms of the house that any family member can log into than have user-specific iPads that family members always had to keep track of. A iPhone is a personal device. An iPad SHOULD BE a SHARED device.
Thoughtful posting. I would like to see all wireless devices usable on any wireless provider as long as they are subscribed.
Then bring out a lighter second-gen iPad that comes with UMTS and/or CDMA standard. GIve it 32G of RAM, a faster processor, cameras, better battery life, and have it come in at maybe $549. Offer another version or two with more RAM.
As for the question of switching to OLED, there is no reason to do so at this time. LED works just fine and is substantially cheaper. Supply constraints are beside the point.
Apple does the above and they'll continue to dominate the tablet market. What other company is in a position to offer a 10" tablet for $399 US or any product able to keep up with the second-gen iPad as it is likely to be configured. And what other company can offer such a rational, integrated device that is so easy to use and acquire software for.
Apple's advantage, mainly, is that while other manufacturers are just starting to work with the touchscreen tablet format, Apple has been building a device along those lines for several years in the form of the Touch. That's why the first-gen iPad is such a capable well-thought-out device.
I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.
On Amazon the stats typically show the cheapest model (16GB WiFi) as the best seller with the most expensive (64GB WiFi+3G) model as the second best seller.
Note that you don?t have to incur any additional bills to use the 3G model. I have it just in case I need internet and that?s the only option. It also affords me the use of the GPS and what I assume is better resell value. Least of all, possibly slightly better WiFi since the top portion is a plastic.
Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".
They may make deals with Apple on this, but the fact that Apple didn?t lock or subsidize the original iPad makes me wonder if they simply didn?t want this to be another device with contracted data plan.
While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:
? front-facing camera for FaceTime
? faster A? processor
? increased SSD (Flash) storage
? thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
? Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)
√ Front-facing camera. Apple?s pushing FaceTime hard, at least a FF camera seems inevitable.
√ Faster and/or more efficient CPU
≈ I?m not so sure they will go with 128GB. Has NAND production come to a point that it?s feasible to make the jump again at the same price point? Since they use more than a single NAND chip, Apple could use 3x32GB to offer 96GB in the high-end iPad, but it?s not like anyone else is matching them well on price, size, and capacity and I doubt CES will change that.
≠ Note this technically feasible with the current iPad?s space but requires a lot more work that any world mode phone I?ve ever seen. Typically, these phones have the four GSM ?2G? bands, the CDMA bands for that country?s carrier it?s locked to, and the UMTS ?3G? bands that covers most of Europe. Apple has five UMTS bands in the iPhone 4. Four of these are actively used around the world, yet they still don?t cover NTT DoCoMo, Japan?s largest carrier, or T-Mobile USA, the US? smallest major MNO. For Apple to add CDMA bands I they?d have to add a lot more bands than any world mode device on the market has ever had. All that comes with a cost and simply may not be worth it, even thought it would likely be technically feasible in the current iPad.
Less likely but highly desired:
? Retina display
? SD card slot
≠ You didn?t define what you mean by Retina Display, but assuming all the rational definitions it?s not going to happen.
≈ I can see an SD card slot happening before a USB interface port, but this also seems very unlikely with the way Apple operates.
And my #1 feature request:
? SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS!...
That would be a nice feature but I?d wait for the iOS 5.0 rumours to begin before starting on SW updates.
If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?
Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units? Apple will sell those in about 5 days.
If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?
If the new model has distinct hardware ( faster processor or camera(s) ) I can see them keeping the old model with significant price cuts.
Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units? Apple will sell those in about 5 days.
If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?
The iPad 1 will not drop to $150. It costs more than that to make. Apple does like their margins, after all, and the iPad is a little thin on margin right now.
The iPad 1 will not drop to $150. It costs more than that to make. Apple does like their margins, after all, and the iPad is a little thin on margin right now.
And yet the cheapest iPod Touch - basically an iPhone 4 inside - costs $200. I see cheapest iPad heading that way - if margins are kept on the higher models they wont suffer.
The iPad 1 will not drop to $150. It costs more than that to make. Apple does like their margins, after all, and the iPad is a little thin on margin right now.
He suggested BY $150, not TO $150. I still agree with you, the price won't drop by $150. I could see $100 drop as the max for the old models, if any
It wouldn't surprise me, but the data plans out there are still very expensive and wifi is becoming ubiquitous anywhere I would use one.
Yes, but if the iPad can be used with more carriers then that enourages competitive pricing. AND the rumor I heard is that it is not separate units but the 'cell' iPad would have both in it. Unlocked. So you could flp back and forth as you please.
front and rear cameras,
matte / smudge free screen,
same ram as iPhone4,
maybe a 1.3GHz A4
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.
lighter would also be a plus.
all at the same cost with bumped memory [32Gig at today's 16Gig price, and 64Gig at 32Gig price]
And my #1 feature request:
• SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! .
While everything else on your list could happen as opponent prices etc come own, this is the one that likely will not. Apple probably does not share your insistent view that the iPad should be a multiuser item. After all this is not a computer. And it will be quite a while before it has the internal kick to try to make such a claim if Apple wanted to go that way.
Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units?
Remember that these reports are coming from folks not actually part of Apple who are most likely being fed garbage by someone wanting to make a quick buck.
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.
Or No they are not robbing you. First off, that $29 price has never been confirmed as correct. And second, the supporting tech is not free for the taking. Companies have to pay licensing fees which can be rather high. Say $100 a produced unit. It is possible that Apple is making no additional profit on the 3G models. Without a confirmed component and licensing costs we can't say
i'm looking forward to picking up a 2nd Gen. hoping for:
front and rear cameras,
matte / smudge free screen,
same ram as iPhone4,
maybe a 1.3GHz A4
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.
lighter would also be a plus.
all at the same cost with bumped memory [32Gig at today's 16Gig price, and 64Gig at 32Gig price]
3G as a standard is where this is headed but for a first-gen product, Apple clearly hit a home run by delivering a 10" tablet for around $500 considering everybody else is talking about hitting that price point initially with 7" devices.
While everything else on your list could happen as opponent prices etc come own, this is the one that likely will not. Apple probably does not share your insistent view that the iPad should be a multiuser item. After all this is not a computer. And it will be quite a while before it has the internal kick to try to make such a claim if Apple wanted to go that way.
This is also one of the reasons I haven't bought one. For me, this is meant to be a living room / coffee table item that every member of the family should be able to use. I am not going to buy 4 and then have 4 lying around and you get the wrong one all the time, nor do I want free access of all family members to all family member's e-mail.
This is one of the area's where Apple has not got it right yet. There are more examples: though all family members have their own CD/DVD collection, it is easy for physical media to share in the house. But not so for digital media. There are some options (like Home Sharing), but they are not as flexible as CD sharing (e.g. what I access via home sharing, I cannot put on my iPod to listen to, whereas that CD of a family member can be put on my iPod via iTunes.
Apple: please solve the complicated user experience of family sharing of digital sources.
i'm looking forward to picking up a 2nd Gen. hoping for:
matte / smudge free screen,
I don’t see how a matte screen is possible with a glass overlay. Even with a matte panel you negate the purpose by infusing a smooth glass panel to it. I don’t see how or why Apple could or would go to a plastic overlay, but I’m all ears.
same ram as iPhone4,
I think that’s a gimme. I think the bigger question is: Will they exceed the RAM of the iPhone 4?
maybe a 1.3GHz A4
I wonder if they will continue to list the GHz of the CPU or simply refer to by it’s marketing name now. Oddly, they mentioned the CPU speed of the A4 with last year’s iPad, something they’ve never done before with an iDevice. Granted 1GHz is a demarkation point that could be used for marketing, but they haven’t used it since. It’s assumed the A4 in the iPhone 4 and G4 iPod Touch is 1GHz but underclocked to save on power, but it’s not listed.
Since the code makes a difference on how fast these handheld devices feel Apple doesn’t have to compete on simple HW specs in order to have the fastest device on the market from the user’s PoV. With dual-core Cortex-A9s coming out in new tablets Apple may simply go back to competing on the merits of the total package.
CHEAPER 3G version... they're robbing us selling a $27 module for a $130 premium.
I don’t know where this notion comes from but $27.10 is iSuppli’s BOM for the cellular chip and GPS. It’s not accounting for the testing, licensing, engineering, building, etc.You’re also not accounting for the way products are marketed. The more you sell of an item the lower your profit per unit can be to maximize total net profits. Apple and others are likely to sell you the entry level unit with less profit to attack more buyers knowing that a subset of buyers will pay a premium for the products with more features. Since these items with more features cost more you typically get less buyers which means you have to make more profit per unit to equal less expensive items in that group. So when you say they are charging “too much” of a premium for a feature, you have to consider that the entry level item 1) may be sold less than their standard profit margin, and 2) that they aren’t selling as many.
Also note that carriers still sell ‘3G’ USB cards for PCs at rates higher than $130, typically at $250 from what I’ve seen in the US, and these don’t come with GPS.
I'm less interested in cameras and GPS, and more interested in what sort of spec. increase there will be.
The thing is, I keep having to ask myself, "Do I really want to spend the money on this, considering I have an iMac, a MacBook, and an iPhone." I mean, I definitely want one, and there have been times where situations presented themselves and I thought, "Dammit. This is the perfect time for an iPad!"
I guess I'll just have to see what the pricing is.