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.
iPad 3 to be Same Price and Same 16GB/32GB/64GB Sizes as iPad 2
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
No 128? Okay, but with larger file sizes, bigger gaming Apps, it would have made sense. Might yet see it, but I'm pleased the prices are likely to remain broadly the same. Means I can buy the ATV3 at the same time, IF it's 1080p
If App sizes grow as Devs take advantage of the Ipad3's retina display though, I wonder if Apple will be left thinking they have missed a trick? Surely It would not have been that much of a problem to design in more capacity?
If App sizes grow as Devs take advantage of the Ipad3's retina display though, I wonder if Apple will be left thinking they have missed a trick? Surely It would not have been that much of a problem to design in more capacity?
No 4G - it doesn't make financial sense at the moment.
The one specification in all the rumors I don't buy is 4G LTE support.
Ok whilst north America may have this up and running, most of the world does not with many European countries still not tendering their 4g networks till this year, and most due to only start operating in mid 2013.
It would seem bizarre for apple to opt for a specific US centered model, whilst producing a 3G model for the rest of the world.
I also doubt they would ship to the world a more expensive part in the units that was redundant (over the 3G only) and one which currently is more power hungry and drains battery quicker than the 3G variants of similar devices.
So because the rest of the world 4G is mostly irrelevant, and because of extra expense for part, and the impact 4g has on battery life I predict the iPad 3 won't be 4G LTE enabled, but remain 3G for this revision only.
The one specification in all the rumors I don't buy is 4G LTE support.
Ok whilst north America may have this up and running, most of the world does not with many European countries still not tendering their 4g networks till this year, and most due to only start operating in mid 2013.
It would seem bizarre for apple to opt for a specific US centered model, whilst producing a 3G model for the rest of the world.
I also doubt they would ship to the world a more expensive part in the units that was redundant (over the 3G only) and one which currently is more power hungry and drains battery quicker than the 3G variants of similar devices.
So because the rest of the world 4G is mostly irrelevant, and because of extra expense for part, and the impact 4g has on battery life I predict the iPad 3 won't be 4G LTE enabled, but remain 3G for this revision only.
Wait! It's only another rumor. I still think 128GB model for $999 is half likely.
Makes tons of sense.
Hope your wrong though.
3 black wifi - 16,32,64
3 white wifi - 16,32,64
3 black 3G / wifi - 16,32,64
3 white 3G / wifi - 16,32,64
That's 12 SKU's. Nothing to do with Sprint models ;-)
This year I think we'll get the same storage capacities (16/32/64gb) and an A5X processor with better graphics. Still, with the retina display, improved cameras, and 4G LTE, that's nevertheless a huge upgrade for Apple, especially if prices stay the same.
I predict that next year, they'll do one of their mid-cycle upgrades (like the iPhone 3GS or 4S) - a much faster A6 processor, bump in storage capacity (128gb?) and maybe shave half a millimetre off to bring it back to iPad 2 sizes. They've gotta save something for 2013, after all.
I predict that next year, they'll do one of their mid-cycle upgrades (like the iPhone 3GS or 4S) - a much faster A6 processor, bump in storage capacity (128gb?) and maybe shave half a millimetre off to bring it back to iPad 2 sizes. They've gotta save something for 2013, after all.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
As I understand this particular rumor, the LTE chip used falls back to 3G when it can't find LTE signals. Thus, one chipset to cover both markets. It's how it would have to work if it is in this iPad as the U.S. doesn't have LTE everywhere yet.
The rumor also goes that maybe it will be LTE with universal 3G fall back, meaning it would work with either AT&T or Verizon 3G. The part numbers give me some pause about this one, but it would be nice to have a device that would allow a hop from provider to provider instead of being locked to just one network type.
iPads bigger battery could make LTE fly in this one. Many competing devices are already there. I could see Apple building it into this iPad. Else, would they really wait until 2013 for an LTE iPad4?
For the reasons I mentioned above I don't think we will see 4G this year. It does not make financial sense for Apple to use a part that is irrelevant to 90% of the world because those networks are not in place.
Apple do as much as they need to do with upgrades, they rarely go above and beyond that with refreshes.
If we get the a5x processor, improved gpu, improved cameras, more ram and retina display - that alone would be more than enough new features for the iPad 3
That leaves room for quad core A6 and then 4G LTE updates in 2013 where iPad 4 can be all about the 4's (4g & 4 CPU cores)..... I can see the marketing now ;-)
Regardless of the chipset falling back to 3g, thats not my point of contention. That 4G part more than likely still costs more money to produce than 3G only no doubt. Apple wouldn't throw away money on a chip set that can't be used in 90% of the world, doesn't make financial sense.
Even if the difference is a mere $5, over 50 million units that's $250,000,000 conceivably down the drain.
Last edited:
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0_1 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A405)
Why would you care what other people do with their devices? In what possible way are they hurting you by this behavior?
Why would you care what other people do with their devices? In what possible way are they hurting you by this behavior?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Didn't Apple build in Verizon's 3G network technology which was good for only a small segment of the world (since it was not AT&T's GSM). Was that "throwing away money"?
It's not down the drain to have added functionality built in. It won't be irrelevant for every one of those 50 million units you anticipate.
My iMac had quad core long before any software I used was much optimized for quad core. Thunderbolt has been built in (and costs more than $5 per by the way) for all new Macs for what- a year now- and there are what- about 3 peripherals that might be available to use it? I rarely shoot enough HD video to fill up a fraction of the 220GB hard drive built into my camcorder, but I'd rather have it- just in case- than not have it and bump into that wall at an inopportune moment. 10 hours of battery may be expensive overkill for 90% of iPad users too but it doesn't make me think Apple should reduce the battery to 6 hours to save $5+ Etc. If you're going to apply the 90% rule, is a retina display really necessary? Is an upgrade to a version 3 necessary? 90% of the world doesn't even have an iPad. Thus, is the iPad necessary?
Apple tends to be a bit U.S.-centric in it's product development. Build it and launch it here, then roll it out beyond here. Apple may be feeling a little competitive itch given how many competing devices are touting LTE here. We generally assume iPhone5 or iPhone 4s+ will probably have LTE. Maybe iPad3 will have it too?
Last edited:
No but for vast majority it is, and of the small percent that can avail of it, only a further small percentage would prob be availing again. Law of diminishing returns.
Apple may be US centric in product development, but they are not US centric when it's the profit margin.
Why give away a feature now that is mostly irrelevant, when you can save money and offer it in next years revision which makes far more sense as the world will only be coming on stream then with 4G. Even if they launch in Spring 2013, most of Europe isn't scheduled to have 4G up and running till mid 2013 so even then they are beating the network providers to the mark.
And YES retina display is needed more so than 4G LTE at moment, especially as Apple forge ahead with their desire to replace school text books.
(Your quad Core analogy is misplaced and wrong. An iMac received quad core updates long after quad cores were available in other Mac such as the MacPro. The operating system and other software was taking advantage of quad core architecture even if some of the programmes you were running we're not multi-core optimised. So even if a particular app could only take advantage of a single core, your machine was still running better and utilizing the other cores. So your analogy is just wrong).
Last edited:
Cases are not a niche market, heh. I travel a lot and rarely ever (in fact, I can't think of a time) see completely naked iPads. Cases are universal.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
99% of the apps in the iTunes store are not iPad retina now. >90% of the world doesn't have an iPad. >90% does run Windows so maybe iPad3 should run Windows since so much of the world is Windows capable.
How do you know that Apple didn't buy enough volume to get the LTE part for the same price as the 3G part? Maybe one LTE part that falls back to both AT&T and Verizon 3G is cheaper than building multiple iPad models for differing 3G standards?
In any event, we'll see soon enough. As someone living in America with LTE on my coast, I'd like to see LTE supported in this iPad. Do you have 1080p HD in Ireland? Or is that something else that 90% of the world can't use so why should Apple do that too? Do you have any thunderbolt equipment? Of is that >90% absent in the world so that made no sense either?
You know, if you are Apple and you have to wait until most of the world is completely ready for the next big thing, that next big thing probably never comes. You have to lead or you follow. It's hard to stay the "King" if you wait too long on the latest & greatest.
If this retina screen is going to beg for 1080p video and someone wants to download 1080p over wireless, LTE is going to be THE way to get it before they die of old age. Retina begs for 1080p. 1080p begs for faster file transmissions. It's easy to see the logic of LTE beyond just the fact that a number of competitors are pushing LTE and Apple still has no technical answer for that particular benefit yet (but maybe they will on Mar 7 when their biggest battery iDevice rolls out).
Last edited:
Right do basically because you want it, and can avail of it - Apple should include it. Gotcha....
Oh and no we don't have 1080p here, all our televisions are powered by horse and cart, and magic leprechauns.... Patronizing much...
The likes of AT&T & Verizon must love guys who think like you. 3GB is $30. One 1080p HD movie rental download will likely be greater than 3GB. With iCloud, why have more than a bare minimum of on-board storage? We can store it all in iCloud! And then download it all via AT&T or Verizon at $30 for 3GB. What a great, great idea (for AT&T & Verizon)!
Or, be smart and use WIFI...
What makes you say that? There are many who have shifted to using just their phones and other non-traditional computing devices and this trend will continue to accelerate as these devices have become quite powerful with substantial capacity.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Sorry, you're the one who- because your country is lacking LTE- thinks NO ONE should have LTE. You're the one slinging the 90% stat like tech innovation should wait until 90% of the world is fully ready to take advantage of it.
No my point of contention was that because majority of the world does not have 4G networks and the rollout of them isn't scheduled till 2013 that I doubt Apple will include 4G in this revision.
I have given tangible, and articulated argument for Apple to hold back on 4G this year, you have given nothing to counter balance that opinion only some diatribe about iPads running windows because you failed to grasp, or sensibly counter my argument and then followed it with generalisation about my country.
Great argument, loved debating with you, but realize you're simply not worth the time....
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
...if you can find- and keep- wifi when you need content not stored locally but in the iCloud. The iCloud dream that gets slung around here as a replacement for on-board storage pretty much depends on having access to iCloud whenever you need it. If I'm flying across the country and want to watch the movie that I couldn't store on my iPad because we embraced the idea of iCloud storage over local storage, tough luck until I land and can find some wifi or 3G/4G.
My response supported other arguments that it would be nice/have been nice to see local storage slide up the scale... especially with concepts of retina displays driving bigger apps, bigger video files, bigger iBooks, etc. I'm in the camp that would like to see the 128GB option.
Many here just sling "iCloud is the future" to such wants ignoring the issues of what if there is no available connection to iCloud when one needs some files, what about the middlemen putting the pinch on wireless access with tightening tiers, throttling, and bandwidth caps, etc. Someone posted about wanting an 8GB or less iPad with everything stored in iCloud. That would be fun.
----------
OK. So let's buy your argument for a moment. Can you reconcile the part numbers? If they aren't embracing a universal chip to cover AT&T and Verizon networks in a single iPad3 body, why aren't we seeing part numbers for both AT&T and Verizon versions. Instead, we're seeing part numbers for the 2 colors: good, better, best (which is implied to be 16GB, 32GB, 64GB).
If your belief pans out, I'd take the part numbers to mean that they are going with a universal chip (covering both AT&T & Verizon) but it would only (still) be 3G. If my belief pans out, I'd take it as LTE with fall backs for both AT&T & Verizon) in one chip. Is the former your take (one universal chip but 3G only)?
And since 90% of the world won't have LTE this year, I assume you would also suggest that the iPhone 5 won't be LTE either, right?
Lol.
There's a reason why it's called iCloud and not isky, clouds are not ubiquitous, and when you want it to rain the most you get stuck in some airport lounge asking for the closer hotspot or waiting for that movie to download over 3G so you can have something to watch on board, but I guess we are the only ones that consistently get screwd in these scenarios, other people here seem to have unlimited data plans, perpetual access to wifi hotposts and on the spot downloading from mount Everest to some ******** hotel they have to rest their bones for while before heading off for the next appointment the next day.
There's a reason why it's called iCloud and not isky, clouds are not ubiquitous, and when you want it to rain the most you get stuck in some airport lounge asking for the closer hotspot or waiting for that movie to download over 3G so you can have something to watch on board, but I guess we are the only ones that consistently get screwd in these scenarios, other people here seem to have unlimited data plans, perpetual access to wifi hotposts and on the spot downloading from mount Everest to some ******** hotel they have to rest their bones for while before heading off for the next appointment the next day.
