iPad 2 with High Resolution Screen and SD Card Slot, iPhone 5 with A5 Processor?

[DrFrankTM]

Higher screen res? Really?

I have been posting for 8 months that the iPad 2 will get 4x the pixels. It's not as if it was a vector based GUI. Besides, what apps cannot scale up due to battery issues can be run in 1024 x 768 mode.

Well, it seems obvious to me that, when the resolution does change, it will be 4 times the pixels so that nothing breaks. Worked great for the iPhone and the iPod touch. I don't see why they'd do it differently for the iPad. Anyone who says the iPad will get 1.5 times the resolution or something like that has little credibility in my book. I just really don't see it happening.

The bigger question though is whether Apple will up the iPad's screen resolution right away and the answer to that one, for me, is less than obvious. For one thing, if Apple's going to up the screen res on rev 2, why have a gen-1 device with 1024x768 in the first place? I mean... If Apple didn't think that res was good enough, they wouldn't have come out with such a device. Will it go up whenever feasible? Yeah, sure. Will it go up on the iPad 2? I very much doubt it.

For me, it all boils down to 2 things: a) Could Apple get its hands on enough higher-res screens to put on all of its second-gen iPads? and b) What price would it get for those?

a) seems iffy at best, but b) is why I don't think it will happen this soon.

Does anyone know how much a 2048x1536 iPad screen would cost? Or where we can find this type of info?

 

[fobfob]

The first iPad should have had 512 MB of ram.

Agreed.

Phone 5 will look just like iPhone 4. Maybe a little thinner at best.

Agreed.

 

[KnightWRX]

dual core in the iPhone 5 is almost a sure thing too, except if Apple doesn't mind being the only single core high-end phone in a sea of dual core Android phones. Android is going dual core in 2011 in a big way on all the high-end devices.

Heck, people thought that the A4 was based on a Cortex A9 at first and it was a surprise that Apple based their design on the older Cortex A8.

 

[applebook]

IF the iPad 2 includes a very high res IPS screen, then I'm buying.

 

[wizard]

The antenna issue is history.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148a)

I think the design has to be marketed as a major re-design to put the antenna thing to history.

But re-design probably means the inside, and maybe thinner.

Apple has been selling iPhone 4 faster than any previous iPhone for months. Antenna gate went the way of the dodo simply because it was blown way out of proportion. It is an example of totally irresponsible reporting.

 

[kockgunner]

An SD slot makes a lot more sense to me than a USB port. It’s a cable-free way to use your camera, which is itself a mobile device. Whereas most USB devices—with their associated cables—aren’t really things you lug around everywhere. (And Bluetooth alternatives to USB devices—keyboards especially—are common.)

Maybe the USB rumors started because some prototypes have tested a USB port instead of SD, in the same location?

I don’t really need either one (and there’s a kit available for both) but of the two I’d take SD! Or, no harm in having both...

I’m still skeptical of seeing a resolution increase, but it would be great if they can pull it off! I at least expect a low-end iPad model to keep the old 1024x768 for minimal cost (and best usage of limited display manufacturing capacity).

EDIT: re design, it’s exactly what I’d expect, and I like it. It follows the shape of the new Touch (allowing it be a little thinner—and feel even more thin). And those leaked cases make it likely too.

People who go out of their way to buy an adapter know what it can be used for. If Apple includes a USB port on the device, people will be disappointed when they find out 90% of their peripherals aren't compatible.

 

[bloodycape]

I doubt that many people will go through the hassle of buying SD cards for that purpose. And mind you, high capacity, small form factor SD cards aren't cheap.

You'd be surprise, as you can get a 32gb sdhc card for as low as $51 on amazon, which is cheaper than upgrading to a newer iPad when all the user wants is more space. Plus, if it is the SDXC format the size of what you can get could be endless.

 

[rwilliams]

A multicore processor in the next iPhone sounds great, but I think I'm going to wait until next year's phone. This iPhone 4 is a great device and I don't want to give it up just yet.

 

[Speedy2]

Your correct on the CPU guys probably not knowing about screen res. and some other things. But the iOS guys would. The team building the OS would have to know everything about the new devices so they can make the OS work on them.

I highly doubt that. The iOS team is probably divided into several groups, since iOS is not some small piece of software. And only one group would write drivers and know about an SD card reader chip or the next video chip; another group designs the new Springboard and would probably know what to expect in terms of screen real estate; and no iOS guy would know about the case design. The iOS team probably doesn't even know about the CPU since A9 and A8 are software compatible, and iOS, being a derivative of OS X, has always been capable of handling multiple CPUs.

 

[Eso]

That story implied Apple would be making separate CDMA and GSM devices.

Device ID's are often found for products that are never released. iPhone 3,3 it not a known product; that could very well be the case for iPhone 4,2.

 

[I WAS the one]

Lies... Lies.... Lies..... The iPad is too young to bring so many features. The iPhone is too new to change the design. And Apple tv is not a success yet so why bother investing more money on it?

iPad will be cooler... Not greater. Just the Apple way.

 

[fobfob]

For one thing, if Apple's going to up the screen res on rev 2, why have a gen-1 device with 1024x768 in the first place? I mean... If Apple didn't think that res was good enough, they wouldn't have come out with such a device.

Good question, but one that has a good answer. Apple was desperate to get the iPad out as soon as possible at a price that would ensure they sold a boat load of them. To do that, they had to go with whatever was available (iPhone OS 3.2), at a good price (1027x768 screen and 256MB RAM).

It turns out the gamble paid off. Despite lacking multitasking and other goodies found in iPhone 4, it sold well enough to grab not only the market, but also the mindshare of the public. Now, it is the iPod, the walkman, the Windows (if you will) of tablets computers. Right now, it is the best thing out there, mainly due to its mature software and App store environment. Competitors are scrambling to compete, and eventually they will bring out products that will make iPad look somewhat quaint. Of course iPad will develop too, but it will be a real competition. But the question that will be in every consumer's mind is "how does this compare to an iPad?". They might end up buying the competitor's product, but to have that sort of mindshare is a marketers dream. It will keep marketshare up when times are otherwise quite tough. It's hard (but not impossible) to knock someone from that position unless the entire market changes direction and they don't innovate with it.

So the rather lame iPad 1 offering did its job. It got Apple in the door, out in the market, shipping millions of devices before everyone had stopped laughing at the name. Now the laughter turns to tears and Apple have scored their best coup well, ever. The Macs, iPods and iPhones took MUCH longer to gain equivalent marketshare (for different reasons). Of course, with the industry in this embryonic state, things will change rapidly, but it will be interesting to watch.

 

[Full of Win]

The iPad 2 could get a 1600x1200 resolution. That would very much put it in the realm of "Retina" display as Apple defined the term back in June of '10. Forget the 300 dpi people, that's for phones you hold 12" away from your eyes. iPad is held farther away (think 22") and requires much lesser dpi to achieve the Retina effect.

Something that bears repeating yet again in light of another 4x the pixels claim in this thread. You'd think after all the repeating some of us have been doing on this topic it would start to catch on with some folks...

If the resolution was made 2048 X 1536...assuming a 9.7 inch screen, it would have a DPI of 264. I don't think anyone is suggesting it going over 300.

If they made it 1600 X 1200, it would introduce either a fragmentation issue or there would have to be resource draining interpolation.

In a few months time, we will all be discussing how awesome the new 2048 X 1536 screen is. The press will be raving about it and telling all the consumers there is no Android (or Palm) tablet with this type of resolution. This resolution will be one of the crown jewels in the fight against Honeycomb tables.

 

[Speedy2]

You'd be surprise, as you can get a 32gb sdhc card for as low as $51 on amazon, which is cheaper than upgrading to a newer iPad when all the user wants is more space. Plus, if it is the SDXC format the size of what you can get could be endless.

Well, the sole limitation that the internal apps surely won't be using the space for play back and nothing can be synced onto it, will make the card somewhat cumbersome to use for that purpose. People buying iPads usually don't like cumbersome to use...
I dunno. I just don't see how they couldn't cripple it too much without defeating the entire purpose of having the slot in the first place.

 

[DCJ001]

Is it just me or does the iPad dummy model look like it's inflated with air?

It is you who looks like you're inflated with air.

You asked.

 

[mrblack927]

I cant imagine Apple abandoning their Tic-Tic update pattern for the iPhone. A speed bump is all i would expect from the '5'

I was never sold on the "tic-toc" theory. By that logic, the second iphone (iphone 3g) should have been very similar to the first. But it wasn't. The first major redesign came after one year, and the second major redesign came after 2 years. That's all the data we have so far. The way I see it, it's just as likely that they will wait 1 year for another redesign as it is they will wait 2, since each of those events has happened once.

Basically, I think people are trying to find order in randomness too much. Apple has continuously gone against patterns in pretty much everything they do (save for the predictable anual product special events) and personally, I like it that way. It keeps things interesting, and surprise is more fun than routine.

 

[Speedy2]

Redesign sounds plausible to me... the iPhone 4's design is (correctly or otherwise) closely correlated with antennagate in many people's minds... complete redesign makes it easier to eradicate that

Lol. People don't even remember that media fluke anymore. The phone sold and still sells like crazy.

 

[FrenchKheldar]

If they add an SD card slot, they're bound to limit what it can be used for (ie, just importing into the photo app).

If they made it accessible by any app then it would seriously dent sales in Apple's higher end iPads. Why pay Apple for a 64G when you can buy a load of cheap 16G or 32G SD cards to keep all your movies and other big media on?

Except if the higher end model has the better screen No Retina Display for you if you only get the 16GB version...

 

[Aatos.1]

The bit in bold is pretty interesting...

Sounds like the next iPhone will actually be a a significant upgrade rather than a 3gs type upgrade.

Thoughts?

I'm encouraged to learn that Apple realizes how badly they failed with the iPhone 4 antenna. Yes I'm aware of the record sales, yet that doesn't prove anything other than Apples ability to sell anything no matter the quality or performance.

A complete redesign is the appropriate action. Hopefully if some fault is discovered early (like the iP4 antenna) & called to Jobs attention, he will take it seriously instead of sticking it to the customer as he did with antennagate. His age is showing as he becomes set in his ways, a fact of life. Whether he still has it may need to be considered.

Should the new phone function properly that would restore many peoples trust in Apple. I'd like nothing better.

 

[Speedy2]

Anyone who says the iPad will get 1.5 times the resolution or something like that has little credibility in my book. I just really don't see it happening.

Well, screens with such a high and unusual resolution would be quite expensive to make. Since Apple took quite a hit to their margin with the iPad, they won't go ahead and put overly expensive parts into a refresh.

 

[BriChi]

You mean consumers don't do their homework and take the sales peoples word at face value?!?!?! HOLLY ****! Why didn't I ever think of doing that myself!

If Verizon is saying they are releasing the iphone 4 on their network February, Most consumers are going to buy it and think they have the best on the network, then Apple announces a totally redesigned iphone available in June for Verizon again, most consumers would flip. I do do my homework and know how all this goes, it's just annoying that they pull this **** so close, they were better off announcing it and selling it in June, not february if this is the case, People will flip out and the press will be all over it like a bad antenna design!!

 

[Mattsasa]

so this means no LTE in iphone 5... makes sense I guess.

A5 in ipad. first I was thinking iphone would get the upgrade first then ipod then ipad, as that is how it will be with gyro, facetime, etc.

but then again A4 came to ipad then iphone. So I hope ipad 2 gets A5 or whatever its called.

if ipad has higher resolution display it will be 2048x1536

I think apple tv 3 would launch with ios 5, with apple tv apps, but atv 2 would also get apps. atv 3 would be minor update A5, maybe 16gb configuration

 

[Mattsasa]

Lies... Lies.... Lies..... The iPad is too young to bring so many features. The iPhone is too new to change the design. And Apple tv is not a success yet so why bother investing more money on it?

iPad will be cooler... Not greater. Just the Apple way.

I disagree with everything you just said

 

[Speedy2]

Antenna gate went the way of the dodo simply because it was blown way out of proportion. It is an example of totally irresponsible reporting.

I wouldn't say irresponsible, since the media can report all the gossip they want. I'd rather say clueless and stupid. Somewhat near Jersey Shore level.

 

[wizard]

The development process really doesn't allow for the best tech on a new product.

Well, it seems obvious to me that, when the resolution does change, it will be 4 times the pixels so that nothing breaks. Worked great for the iPhone and the iPod touch. I don't see why they'd do it differently for the iPad. Anyone who says the iPad will get 1.5 times the resolution or something like that has little credibility in my book. I just really don't see it happening.

A 4 X increase in pixels should be fairly easy to do. However don't dismiss multiplier other than two. Apple has support in the SDK right now for odd resolution jumps. Beyond that they warn developer in the SDK documentation to be aware of the fact that future machines might not have the easy 2 X multiplier of previous hardware.

It may not happen and might not be likely but it is not impossible.

The bigger question though is whether Apple will up the iPad's screen resolution right away and the answer to that one, for me, is less than obvious. For one thing, if Apple's going to up the screen res on rev 2, why have a gen-1 device with 1024x768 in the first place? I mean... If Apple didn't think that res was good enough, they wouldn't have come out with such a device. Will it go up whenever feasible? Yeah, sure. Will it go up on the iPad 2? I very much doubt it.

If you have ever been involved in major product introductions I think you would understand the difficulties of implementing "all the goods" up front. Beyond having a ship date to hit they need to overcome all sorts of ramp up problems and zero out nagging little details to get the product out the door. Often the tech in the product is frozen well before we even hear about it to allow engineering to focus on the endless issues involved in a line start up.

For me, it all boils down to 2 things: a) Could Apple get its hands on enough higher-res screens to put on all of its second-gen iPads? and b) What price would it get for those?

It is more difficult than that. Say they had a line on the screens. So what does it take to drive those screens and how much video memory would they take. In other words a new screen means a higher performance SoC, with a better GPU and far more RAM. Since iPad is dreadfully low on RAM in its current form factor a higher resolution screen would make for a useless iPad with the current SoC.

It goes beyond that also. More pixels means more RAM as we have seen but that also implies a lot more bandwidth.

a) seems iffy at best, but b) is why I don't think it will happen this soon.

I would have to disagree. It would be a competitive advantage that Apple would have for a few months if they are lucky.

Unfortunately I'm away form home right, so I can't reference articles, now but there are several manufactures ready with higher resolution displays, many of these in 7" format.

Also as a bit of a side note there is a staggering amount of research going into LCD and other flat panel technologies. Engadgets reference to new tech is interesting. That in and of itself could indicate something very interesting is coming.

Does anyone know how much a 2048x1536 iPad screen would cost? Or where we can find this type of info?

Idon't believe these would be stock items anywhere right now. Even if they where it would mean much because of Apples relationship with its display manufactures. Apple is in the habit of paying upfront for its production requirements.