I'm convinced iPad 3 will be quadcore. But, in A9 core. That way, iPad 4 will use A15 with bigger leap in performance as some people suspect this alternating release similar to iPhone.
I'm willing to bet quite a lot that it won't have LTE.
The original commentor to whom I was responding was not addressing that. He was only saying that you can't tell the difference of about a millimeter. Time was definitely not a part of his comment.While I agree with you on the ability to detect small differences; the real issue is will such a difference be noticed over time? In general, the answer is no - people become used to the new dimensions and they then feel normal. So, unless you use an iPad2 and the (mythical slightly thicker) iPad3 interchangeably and swap often enough to retain the memory of the iPad2's thickness you will not likely notice the difference.
Maybe an option.
Anyone else mildly concerned about the Foxconn workers having to work inhuman hours to produce this tablet? Foxconn does not have a stellar record on treating their workers decently. Suicide rates at their factory are abnormal.
I just listened to the Mike Daisey interview on This American Life last week on iPads and Foxconn. Disturbing.
Yes -- it really does. BUT what I realized after they made the iPad 2 with only 512 MB of ram, is that the real problem is physical space. Since the iPad is basically a big battery with some chips strapped on, any additional space taken up by the RAM chips will reduce battery life substantially. There are two ways to go from 512 MB -> 1 GB of ram. Either you just double the number of RAM chips (which in most environments would be fine) or you have more RAM in the same amount of space. As far as I know, 1GB chips at the same size as 512MB chips are much more expensive than just getting more 512MB chips. So this is probably the real dilemma with regards to increasing RAM -- either you increase ram and decrease battery, or you increase ram and you increase price.
Too many wishful thinkers in here. Macrumors should seriously ban this source.
Retina display - Most likely.
LTE and Quadcore? - Come on get real guys. Apple will milk you for your money before they give you this. Stop being all up on Apple's nuts and think realistically on what would be a money-making play on their part.
Get ready for a significant price increase![]()
The original commentor to whom I was responding was not addressing that. He was only saying that you can't tell the difference of about a millimeter. Time was definitely not a part of his comment.
But you really can. You don't even need to hold the units at the same time. Pick one up, hold it, put it down, pick up the other one and hold it. You can tell.
Whether or not a given individual will get used to a particular thickness device is a totally separate discussion, but the original commentor did not direct attention to that train of thought. But there's really little to discuss about this latter issue. Some people will get used to it (and keep the new device), some won't (they'll return it, or keep it and just spend the rest of their lives complaining).
It's like any time you replace one thing with another, whether it be a hamburger, a beer, a pet, and automobile. Sure, there are differences between what you have now in your hands and what you used to have, and probably what you will have on another day. Is what you have in your hand good enough? It's up to the individual.
So saying that you can't tell the difference of 1mm thickness is wrong. Because we know that we will get people right here in this forum complaining about it. There will always be people griping, and we can count of many of them coming here to air their complaints, despite the fact that this site will not change the situation.
Re quad core you're missing the way Apple approaches marketing. They've not EVER yet made the processor a BIG part of marketing the iPad. Why would they start now? Apple has NEVER been about specs in its iDevice portfolio. They are about the overall user experience. If the quadcore chip fits into the existing low/mid/high model pricing structure, and provide an improved user experience, of course they will adopt it.
Wait, April at the latest.
Some people will get used to it (and keep the new device), some won't (they'll return it...
No one will advise you to wait for the iPad 4 if the iPad 3 has only been launched for five weeks. The advise of waiting is only given to those who are planning to buy a product almost a year after it received its last upgrade.Rumors are great to get people to put off buying Apple products. As soon as the next iPad ships, rumors will start in the next one. It's so good to have paid bloggers generating rumors based on nothing and paid commentors trolling blog sites to make silly comments. I guess that is one thing SOPA will help curtail along with free speech in general.
I will order 8. One for each room.
I would have a hard time believing it would be thicker, but it's definitely more likely now than it would have been a few years ago. Steve Jobs would never have let a regression like that happen. They made a huge deal out of the second one being so much thinner. Heads would have rolled if the engineers tried to tell him that they needed to make the new one thicker.
Well, they will need to provide much better connectivity and a file management system if they ever want to be taken seriously as a computer replacement.
Indeed, the only reason Steve Jobs wanted all of his products thinner, is not because he just wanted to, but to push his engineers.There have been plenty of times an Apple product was thicker than the outgoing product in the Steve Jobs era. It's happened with laptops and the iPhone 3G was thicker than the original iPhone.
There seems to be lots of folks comparing apples to oranges. The iPad is not a phone. All it needs is a data modem. It doesn't do either legacy or LTE voice. There are already parts on the market that do that (e.g., power LTE modem products with a Qualcomm MDM9600 )
There is some credible speculation that Apple is waiting on the 28nm based LTE with voice solutions for the iPhone. For example:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4925/why-no-lte-iphone-5-blame-28nm-maturity
The MDM9615 also adds TD-SCDMA ( http://www.qualcomm.com/media/relea...-market-ltedc-hspa-chipsets-mobile-broadband- ) So , if pandering to the proprietary Chinese market is an issue, that would be another upside to waiting.
While it might boost Apple's profit margins to just use one solution for both (e.g., a MDM9615 in iPad3 and iPhone5), there is not a huge technical raise why. One of the factors of "LTE having power demands" is not that it is LTE radio per se, but the fact you need two solutions to the problem (both a LTE and legacy radio). In the modem, context you don't. Indeed, if both iPads and iPhones sell in huge numbers it might make sense not to soak up MDM9615 availability with iPads.
It is more a cost and time problem because Apple will have to build and qualify two different radios if go with a separate solution for the iPad3. That will cost them more money. Additionally, Apple can probably get the part, MDM9615, cheaper if buy it in larger bulk.
P.S. if people are worried about FDD-LTE vs. TDD-LTE ... gobi 4000 is available.
http://www.qualcomm.com/media/relea...-availability-gobi-4000-platform-4g-lte-conne
it is a modem looking for in iPad; not a phone.
You guys who want more RAM, you need to consider that it takes battery life to preserve the RAM contents when the iPad is OFF. Below is a great article (from Microsoft!) explaining why portable devices with more RAM struggle to even come close to the iPad. The individual memory cells need to remain energized so the states of the various applications can be preserved. I really don't think Apple's being cheap here, I think they're (as usual) trying to create the best overall user experience.
http://www.appleinsider.com/print/1...ne_4s_motivated_by_battery_life_concerns.html
A quad-core chip based on Cortex A9 architecture would be faster than a dual-core chip based on A15 architecture. I highly doubt Apple will go ahead with A15 based design without extensively testing it first. I could be wrong though.
A15 is all speculation. The design doesn't even go into production until late this year with first product hitting in 2013.
I'd presume that the A15 would only be faster than a Quad A9 for applications that aren't multiprocessor aware beyond dual core processor. At a presume 20% speed advantage per clock the A15 would have to clock MUCH higher than a Quad Core A9 to best it in many circumstances.