iPad 3 Media Event Planned for Early February?

[sanke1]

Skipped iPad 2 so I should be good to go with V3

 

[farleysmaster]

Does iOS 5.1 have anything exciting?

 

[marcusj0015]

It's an iPad 1-- not an iPad 2. I suppose it's possible that something's wrong, there were some hiccups on install / upgrade (had to do a factory reset). I suppose I could wipe it again and re-install. Browser is sluggish, there's often lag between when I type on the on-screen keyboard and when the letters actually show up on screen, several apps are no longer as stable as they were in iOS 4. It feels almost as buggy as the HP TouchPad was when it was released. Very un-Apple-like.

Edit: Looks like I'm not the only one:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3400742?tstart=0

I experience similar slowdowns and crashes on my iPod Touch 4 on iOS 5.0.1, I think it's the limited RAM of the A4

 

[2IS]

The iphone 4 has a much smaller screen than the iPad 1. You cant compare the two just because they use the same CPU.

I've noticed a significant hit on the iPad 1 since being on iOS5.

You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact the screen size is absolutely meaningless. Resolution is what matters and the ipad isn't pushing much more pixels than the iPhone 4.

On the other hand, RAM could certainly have something to do with it as mentioned above. I believe the iPhone 4 has 512 vs 256 in the original iPad

 

[rmwebs]

You'd have a point if it weren't for the fact the screen size is absolutely meaningless. Resolution is what matters and the ipad isn't pushing much more pixels than the iPhone 4.

On the other hand, RAM could certainly have something to do with it as mentioned above. I believe the iPhone 4 has 512 vs 256 in the original iPad

The ipad is pushing more pixels regardless. The apps are also generally a bit more intensive. The point still remains: The iPad 1 is slower on iOS 5.

 

[milo]

What's the reasoning for calling it iPhone 5? because 5 comes after 4? But then surely the 4s should have been called 5.

No, I really don't think they'll go there. iPhone 4 was called 4, because it was the 4th generation, and the next one will be iPhone 6 because it's the 6th generation.

Wow, it amazes me the conclusions some people overthink themselves into.

Here's how it works. New form factor brings a new number. Update with the same form factor just adds a letter, it's the equivalent of 4.5, same as a less major software update.

4 was called 4 because it came after 3 (whether it was the fourth version or not was a coincidence). The next one will be called 5 because it's the one after 4. 99% of the population has no idea which generation it is nor do they care.

The only odd part of iPhone numbering was the 3G and that name came from it running 3G technology instead of being the third iPhone.

Really, skip 5 and sell a 4 then straight to a 6? And have the vast majority of people scratch their heads why they skipped 5? Common sense, people.

 

[BaldiMac]

Wow, it amazes me the conclusions some people overthink themselves into.

Here's how it works. New form factor brings a new number. Update with the same form factor just adds a letter, it's the equivalent of 4.5, same as a less major software update.

4 was called 4 because it came after 3 (whether it was the fourth version or not was a coincidence). The next one will be called 5 because it's the one after 4. 99% of the population has no idea which generation it is nor do they care.

The only odd part of iPhone numbering was the 3G and that name came from it running 3G technology instead of being the third iPhone.

Really, skip 5 and sell a 4 then straight to a 6? And have the vast majority of people scratch their heads why they skipped 4? Common sense, people.

You can use the same logic to say that there is a likelihood that it will be called the iPhone 4G. The ONLY pattern so far in the naming is adding the "S" with no case change. I agree that it probably won't be the iPhone 6.

 

[milo]

You can use the same logic to say that there is a likelihood that it will be called the iPhone 4G.

Sure, that's a possibility but then they'd be putting out a brand new case design without updating the number. Not gonna happen. Skipping a number to match with the generation of phone technology makes sense, holding a new case to the previous number doesn't.

The ONLY pattern so far in the naming is adding the "S" with no case change. I agree that it probably won't be the iPhone 6.

My point exactly. The number changes when the case changes. Now if it was moving to "6G" technology then skipping to 6 (like they did with 3G) would make sense. But since that's not the situation, the next case gets the next number.

 

[Dudical]

Because Chinese factory will be in holiday of New Year, then new product is concidered to be released in early March.

This is ridiculous. The factory workers complain about unfair conditions, then they get a big vacation before the launch of an important product? They really need to get their priorities straight.

 

[osx11]

Release it on Steve Job's Birthday. I think it's end of Feb...?

That would be best date for apple to remember their CEO.

What day is his birthday?

Oh yeah, wikipedia is down for the day.

----------

This is ridiculous. The factory workers complain about unfair conditions, then they get a big vacation before the launch of an important product? They really need to get their priorities straight.

Yeah!

They can't possibly be spending time with their families, they should work their *** off so us westerners can enjoy our over-priced tech gadgets.

 

[fabian9]

Wow, it amazes me the conclusions some people overthink themselves into.

Here's how it works. New form factor brings a new number. Update with the same form factor just adds a letter, it's the equivalent of 4.5, same as a less major software update.

4 was called 4 because it came after 3 (whether it was the fourth version or not was a coincidence). The next one will be called 5 because it's the one after 4. 99% of the population has no idea which generation it is nor do they care.

The only odd part of iPhone numbering was the 3G and that name came from it running 3G technology instead of being the third iPhone.

Really, skip 5 and sell a 4 then straight to a 6? And have the vast majority of people scratch their heads why they skipped 4? Common sense, people.

I suppose we won't know until sometime between June and October, so it's a pointless discussion. We'll see who's right then.

This is ridiculous. The factory workers complain about unfair conditions, then they get a big vacation before the launch of an important product? They really need to get their priorities straight.

I hope you're joking. Nobody working in that factory is going to be able to afford one of these products. So even though it might be an important products for us, I really don't think they see it the same way...

 

[BaldiMac]

My point exactly. The number changes when the case changes. Now if it was moving to "6G" technology then skipping to 6 (like they did with 3G) would make sense. But since that's not the situation, the next case gets the next number.

That has only happened once with the iPhone 4. That is not a pattern.

 

[class77]

Steve's birthday is Feb 24.

If the iPad 2 was hard to get(which it was), can you imagine how hard it's going to be to get a retina display iPad 3???

 

[2IS]

The ipad is pushing more pixels regardless. The apps are also generally a bit more intensive. The point still remains: The iPad 1 is slower on iOS 5.

Not enough pixels to make any significant difference. If iOS 5 is slower it's not for the reasons you think (screen) it's due to lack of memory.

 

[milo]

That has only happened once with the iPhone 4. That is not a pattern.

What has happened only once?

There have been five iPhones released so far.
3G changed the case, new number (plus it's the one special case where the name matched the phone technology generation).
3GS didn't, add a letter.
4 changed the case, new number.
4s didn't, add a letter.

Assuming the next model changes the case (which it will), does anyone think it's not going to change the number? The only question is whether it will be 5 or 6, and I don't anyone with any common sense even considers anything but 5 a possibility.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make beyond being pedantic over the definition of the word "pattern" (and it sure seems like you're agreeing with me).

 

[marcusj0015]

The fact that were talking about the rumored and disproven "iPhone 5" on an iPad 3 article is RIDICULOUS

 

[BaldiMac]

What has happened only once?

There have been five iPhones released so far.
3G changed the case, new number (plus it's the one special case where the name matched the phone technology generation).
3GS didn't, add a letter.
4 changed the case, new number.
4s didn't, add a letter.

The number has only been incremented one time for a new case. 3G wasn't a number increment. It was the mobile network technology. It was not incremented from the non-existent previous generation number.

Assuming the next model changes the case (which it will), does anyone think it's not going to change the number? The only question is whether it will be 5 or 6, and I don't anyone with any common sense even considers anything but 5 a possibility.

If you are going by previous iPhone naming conventions, there are a number of possibilities.

iPhone 5
iPhone 4G
iPhone LTE
iPhone 6

All would fit with the precedents we have. Of course, the best bet is iPhone 5, but that has nothing to do with precedent. iPhone 5 also makes the least practical sense. All of the other suffixes have a specific, practical meaning.

 

[milo]

3G wasn't a number increment. It was the mobile network technology. It was not incremented from the non-existent previous generation number.

It was an addition of a number where there wasn't one before. Of course the name matched the network technology but that doesn't change the fact that it was a number added for a new design. Nor does it really matter that the original wasn't called "iPhone 1". You're just debating the semantics of the word "increment" (which I didn't even use).

iPhone 5
iPhone 4G
iPhone LTE
iPhone 6

All would fit with the precedents we have.

4G would be a new case but keeping the previous number, which Apple hasn't done before.

LTE I suppose could be argued is a possibility but I'd say that shipping a model with no number after four models that have one would be more of a departure than following precedents.

And 6 would be skipping a number for no obvious reason (3G skipped a number but it was for a specific purpose) - what would be the reason for the 6 and what the precedent?

Possible names also include:
iPhone 8
iPhone 35
iPhone Green
iPhone Moldy Banana

Because Apple could name it pretty much anything. But assuming they're not going to ignore all previous naming, the only realistic possibility is iPhone 5. Which you agree with.

 

[dannywaugh1]

there is a video on the reports site and in the video a like to tvc-mall.com.

they are selling ipad 3 parts

http://www.tvc-mall.com/product/Ipod_Iphone_Parts_Accessories/wholesale_ipad_3_replacement_parts/

 

[BaldiMac]

It was an addition of a number where there wasn't one before. Of course the name matched the network technology but that doesn't change the fact that it was a number added for a new design. Nor does it really matter that the original wasn't called "iPhone 1". You're just debating the semantics of the word "increment" (which I didn't even use).

I'm the one that used the word increment. I was just pointing out that there has only been one instance of incrementing the number when the case is redesigned (which is what you are suggesting). One time isn't any more precedent than the case for calling it iPhone 4G or iPhone 6.

4G would be a new case but keeping the previous number, which Apple hasn't done before.

The also haven't used a number to refer to anything but the network tech or the generation of the device.

LTE I suppose could be argued is a possibility but I'd say that shipping a model with no number after four models that have one would be more of a departure than following precedents.

No more of a departure than iPhone 5.

And 6 would be skipping a number for no obvious reason (3G skipped a number but it was for a specific purpose) - what would be the reason for the 6 and what the precedent?

The precedent would be that the fourth iPhone was called the iPhone 4. It was the only phone named after its generation.

Possible names also include:
iPhone 8
iPhone 35
iPhone Green
iPhone Moldy Banana

The difference is that the names that I suggested actually have precedent.

Because Apple could name it pretty much anything. But assuming they're not going to ignore all previous naming, the only realistic possibility is iPhone 5. Which you agree with.

I agree that iPhone 5 is the most likely choice. I do not agree with your reasons for that conclusion.

I'm not sure why you are getting frustrated by the pedantic/semantic nature of this conversation. We are discussing the possible names of an unannounced product! Can't get much more pedantic than that!

 

[milo]

...pointless semantic nonsense deleted...

I agree that iPhone 5 is the most likely choice.

Glad to hear you agree with me, thanks.

 

[mrklaw]

This is ridiculous. The factory workers complain about unfair conditions, then they get a big vacation before the launch of an important product? They really need to get their priorities straight.

First, its new year. You begrudge US workers getting Thanksgiving off? Or Christmas? Thought not.

And often thats mitigated anyway. We have companies we work with and they'll be working the weekend before, and the weekend afterwards to partly make up for the new year loss of production.

 

[twoodcc]

that will work for me! the sooner the better, so we'll know if it'll have 4g

 

[farleysmaster]

It'll definitely be called iPhone5,1GreenMoldyBanana

 

[Ewingeric]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.1 Mobile/9A405 Safari/7534.48.3)

I say...

Just announce/release in January..

That way people have something to spend their tax return $$ on