Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
7-Inch iPad to Launch By Christmas?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The current iPad can play 1080p video. It just can't display it on it's lower-res screen. Just like the iPhone 3GS is perfectly capable of playing HD video too.
Is there anyone who thinks that a 7-inch iPad, but with twice the RAM and a faster processor than the current iPad will be a KICK IN THE ASS for the millions of people that have bought it only 2-3 months ago?
The fact that every iOS product will have 512MB RAM (iPod touch, iPhone, iPad 7") in order to better support iOS 4 multitasking, would be a really disappointment.
Why the hell Apple didn't make the first iPad with 512MB RAM!? They were surely already developing iOS4.
I really don't understand why.
The fact that every iOS product will have 512MB RAM (iPod touch, iPhone, iPad 7") in order to better support iOS 4 multitasking, would be a really disappointment.
Why the hell Apple didn't make the first iPad with 512MB RAM!? They were surely already developing iOS4.
I really don't understand why.
What you're forgetting is that the price points on iPods and iPhones have ALWAYS been aggressive. Apple wants market-share. The pricing/specs of iPods or iPhones has always changed from year to year.
So by next year the iPod/iPad pricing WILL change in some way. They'll have to shake things up. So as long as things are changing, they can fit in a new model. Your theory only makes senses if they're gonna leave everything the same. History tells us that year-1 Apple products and prices tend to change a lot by the 2nd version.
FYI, the current iPads are under 800 grams. The, heaviest, 3G model is 780g, I believe. But I'm all for an ever lighter model.
I would hope the A5 is slightly higher than 1.2 - I'm hedging my bets on 1.5Ghz myself. Qualcomm have already said they expect to be able to do it by year's end.
It's only been 4 months since release. If you're right, the delay will that long only because of consumer momentum.
Pre-iPad, I was hard focused on getting an Air to replace my aging Sony ultraportable. That ubiquitous presence is vital, and I was willing to sacrifice desktop horsepower & storage to get it.
With iPad - and with that iPad requiring occasional host tethering - I now seriously consider getting a big-box desktop computer. I don't have to sacrifice multi-core giant-display multi-terabyte storage to get the 80% always-handy usage I need.
Point? It's not just that come iOS 6 + iPad 3 people will start abandoning laptops for iPads, it's that they'll start doing it now (as their laptops expire) because desktops become viable again as the iPad frees their 80% "anywhere" usage from the 20% "dead weight" needs.
Real bottom-line brilliance is those iPads will be paired with the best host computer: iMacs or bigger boxes. Apple won't just sell a billion iPads, they'll sell a billion computers to go with 'em.
Just like the new Macbooks were a kick in the ass of people who bought Macbooks 2 months ago?
That didn't stop Apple from coming out with new laptops. Should they have?
It's one thing going from 480x320 to 960x640 - the total number of pixels is still reasonable for the graphics chip in the iPhone to handle.
Going from 1024x768 to ... 2048x1536 (still a lower DPI than Retina, but you do hold an iPad further away) is probably going a lot more work for the processor and graphics chip - most people's desktop computers are at a lower resolution.
I could see a resolution increase however ... 1280x960, 1600x1200 perhaps.
But I think they'll keep things unchanged with the iPad 2, 1024x768 across the board.
I totally agree. I believe that the "average" family is now something like 3 or 4 laptops. I think that house will soon bes 1 iMac + 3 or 4 iPads. So, yeah, the iPad could be GOOD for desktop machines in the long run! (Bad for laptops, but desktops may gain!)
I say 2012 because I think it'll be possible in 2011 but it always takes time before regular people start to notice things like that and actually get around to doing it.
Because the iPhone 3GS RAM-wise seems to work fine with iOS4 you know?
My belief is that it's the new cameras that necessitate higher RAM on the iPhone 4.
Apple isn't one to overspec on it's iOS devices. It specs to a level of "working brilliantly with the current software". It'd rather save the money from using less RAM and spend that on something else.
They are an aggressive company.
But do you really need retina? It's good on an iphone because it lets the iphone support better HD movies, shows, etc. But on an ipad, the large screen size means that it's already easier for the screen to support HD. If the ipad had the same pixel concentration as retina, it would have over seven million pixels total on a 9.7" screen.
EDIT: I used the same pixel density as iphone 4 in my example.
Oh yeah, I meant under 400g. Halved 1.5lbs as if they were kg, oops.
Maybe iPad 2 9.7" will have a 1.5GHz CPU, with the 7" being slower for power consumption reasons.
This makes no sense.
iTV/Apple TV is designed to work with existing television sets. Consumers typically keep their television sets for many years. Also, TVs are low-margin items as cost competition is fierce. Apple doesn't really want to get involved in this low-margin market (in the same way, they cut the number of their computer monitors to just one size).
Be? not.
Paired with? would be awesome.
Great idea.
7" iPad + iTV.
Small enough to feel "remote"-ish, big enough to actually see scheduling information, dynamic enough to interact with quickly and complexly, personal enough to not interrupt everyone else in the room watching something on the big screen.
If the only significant hardware change is the screen size, then I think you'd probably see a price point starting around $349-399. That guess is based upon the price point of the Touch and current iPad. If they start making it with cameras, more ram, faster processor, etc., then it will definitely be on the high end of that range.
In my house, the iPad is taking the place of my 13" macbook and most of that is for surfing and movies. I hardly play any games, when I'm at home anyway, on my iPhone. To me, a 7" screen would be too small / to close to the iPhone or Touch but it's probably because I've used and fallen in love with the current iPad. For consumers that don't currently have one, then I guess choices are never a bad thing.
For those of you with kids that have mentioned getting one for them, what do you think the appropriate price point is? Please try to be realistic... I would fall out of my chair if it was under $300 because that would be too close to the starting price of a Touch. My 9 year old daughter uses my iPad from time to time. Mostly when we're in the car on a long trip. She has an old Dell D610 that we picked up for $100 a year ago that she uses around the house. I could see spending $200 for a Touch for her but not $400. The closer they could make it to $200 the more attractive a 7" iPad would be but I'm not expecting the dual core rainbow and ice-cream generator or a price below $300.
In my house, the iPad is taking the place of my 13" macbook and most of that is for surfing and movies. I hardly play any games, when I'm at home anyway, on my iPhone. To me, a 7" screen would be too small / to close to the iPhone or Touch but it's probably because I've used and fallen in love with the current iPad. For consumers that don't currently have one, then I guess choices are never a bad thing.
For those of you with kids that have mentioned getting one for them, what do you think the appropriate price point is? Please try to be realistic... I would fall out of my chair if it was under $300 because that would be too close to the starting price of a Touch. My 9 year old daughter uses my iPad from time to time. Mostly when we're in the car on a long trip. She has an old Dell D610 that we picked up for $100 a year ago that she uses around the house. I could see spending $200 for a Touch for her but not $400. The closer they could make it to $200 the more attractive a 7" iPad would be but I'm not expecting the dual core rainbow and ice-cream generator or a price below $300.
I would be interested in a 7' model if it were priced right. Otherwise I'll still be holding out for a good android tablet with a competitive price point.
You're right, but iOS4 will bring multitasking to the iPad, and if Apple will release a powerful iPad after a few months, I think it will be a let down for a lot of users.
Regarding Macbooks, having a 1.66GHz processor or a 1.86GHz doesn't change anything for the 90% of the tasks, but 256MB RAM for iOS4 multitasking will be a let down. Ok, the iPhone 3GS runs multitasking with 256MB, but the iPad is not a smartphone, it's a product between Macbooks and iPhone.
Ok, I know that 3GS runs fine with iOS4 and 256mb RAM, but from an iPad I would expect more.
I'm not saying that the iPad will be a fail with iOS4 and 256MB RAM, but that I don't understand why Apple had not put 512MB in the current iPad, considering that they will probably put 512 in a smaller iPad after a few months.
If there will be a powerful iPad in February-March.. ok .. but why after a few months?
i hope for something like this
same CPU as current iPad, A4, 1Ghz
same memory as current iPad, 256MB
no camera
no retina
8GB
wifi, bluetooth
3G for expensive model? maybe
same resolution as current iPad *
5-6h battery wifi - 10 hours without wifi
LOW price - like 299$ or below, i would love it for 249$
399$ like someone said?? no thanks. for 100$ more i get the real deal, new version, first haft of the next year
or maybe later this year a 10" chineese ( custom cyanogenmod rom android 2.2) toy for less than 199$
edit: indeed, no the same, make it 960x640, 7" to achieve the target: LOW COST
same CPU as current iPad, A4, 1Ghz
same memory as current iPad, 256MB
no camera
no retina
8GB
wifi, bluetooth
3G for expensive model? maybe
same resolution as current iPad *
5-6h battery wifi - 10 hours without wifi
LOW price - like 299$ or below, i would love it for 249$
399$ like someone said?? no thanks. for 100$ more i get the real deal, new version, first haft of the next year
or maybe later this year a 10" chineese ( custom cyanogenmod rom android 2.2) toy for less than 199$
edit: indeed, no the same, make it 960x640, 7" to achieve the target: LOW COST
People keep forgetting that the iPad is a tethered device. It needs a host computer at times. Maybe Jobs will deign to let users detach entirely at some point, but for now getting an iPad means having a home base somewhere.
I'd say 500g is a reasonable target for the WiFi model.
Anyway, how about "iPad" for the 7inch model and "iPad Pro" for the 9.7inch?
The "iPad" would be more underpowered, and the "iPad Pro" would be more high-end (and more expensive), similar to the situation of Macbook and Macbook Pro shown today.
Since Apple is selling every iPad they can make and they still haven't started marketing fully globally, I'm not sure if they need a new iPad. But maybe the smaller screen size will increase the manufacturing locations they can tie into.
A lighter and sharper screen would be nice, but I don't think it will be a kick in the balls to those of us who own an iPad already. And I'm not sure if Apple will be able to offer a sharper screen with more memory at much of a price savings over the current iPad.
The main reason to make some additional sizes and price points would be to grab market share before anyone else can get going. I wonder if Apple is surprised at all the other companies inability to do anything decent in the tablet space? If Apple can sell another 10 million tablets to some of the non-fanboys, then it will be hard for microsoft or HP to gain any traction with their products.
A lighter and sharper screen would be nice, but I don't think it will be a kick in the balls to those of us who own an iPad already. And I'm not sure if Apple will be able to offer a sharper screen with more memory at much of a price savings over the current iPad.
The main reason to make some additional sizes and price points would be to grab market share before anyone else can get going. I wonder if Apple is surprised at all the other companies inability to do anything decent in the tablet space? If Apple can sell another 10 million tablets to some of the non-fanboys, then it will be hard for microsoft or HP to gain any traction with their products.
I checked out the iPad and I noticed it's too heavy, like I thought. You feel like it's going to fall from your hand while touching with the other one.
That's one of the advantages of the Kindle DX, the much reduced bulk (although I haven't tried it).
All that aluminium and glass has go. It seemed too beefy since the announcement.
That's one of the advantages of the Kindle DX, the much reduced bulk (although I haven't tried it).
All that aluminium and glass has go. It seemed too beefy since the announcement.
I don't know. Some will say "to make you upgrade", but Apple never advertise the RAM improvements on iOS devices so I don't know about that argument for RAM. Maybe the 512 version of the A4 wasn't ready? Or maybe they felt 256 was fine, which I think it is. You shouldn't have bought the iPad if you wanted multitasking on it. It was never advertised as doing that.
While true, I also wonder how many people bought them, activated them in-store, and never understood, knew or bothered to connect them to another computer again. I know more than a few people with the original iPhone that are still using their original OS install. ...I've told them, but they just don't care.
I'd bet it's a healthy percentage.