Next Generation of iPad

[kas23]

I hope they offer versions without cameras, too - there are a number of businesses that don't allow products with cameras for security reasons and this market is basically out of Apple's reach due to every product having a camera...then again, the iPad may not be best-suited for that. I know a camera-less BlackBerry exists on most carriers, as do camera-less dumbphones.

I'm sure Apple would allow businesses to disable the camera. Apple already allows businesses to make company-exclusive apps to fit their needs. Disabling the cameras shouldn't be too different.

As for a back-facing camera, it is not just for taking photos. People shouldn't really look at it in that way. Holding up an iPad to take photos would be kinda silly. However, a back-facing camera would be great for showing people your surroundings during a FaceTime session. Just like the iPhone 4, you would be able to switch to the back-facing camera and show people what you are looking at.

 

[BergerFan]

The next iPad will be a subtle evolution. Like the iPhone, the first iPad was the revolution.

The true* competition haven't even begun shipping product yet, 8 months after the iPad began to ship.
So, with that in mind, there's no reason for Apple to bring out the big guns.

The changes in iPad 2, compared to the first, I think will be:
1) Increased RAM(512mb).
2) FaceTime camera.
3) Slightly improved battery life.
4) Metal buttons & mute switch.


*IMO, Samsung's Galaxy Tab, is more of a Dell Streak/Archos 7 & smartphone rival.

 

[colmaclean]

As for a back-facing camera, it is not just for taking photos. People shouldn't really look at it in that way. Holding up an iPad to take photos would be kinda silly. However, a back-facing camera would be great for showing people your surroundings during a FaceTime session. Just like the iPhone 4, you would be able to switch to the back-facing camera and show people what you are looking at.

Why not just turn the iPad around?

Augmented reality would be pretty sweet, but you'd also be opening yourself up to ridicule. Works (and looks) a lot better on something iPhone-sized.

 

[doberman211]

woah... this topic just exploded in my face today! lots of posts. and forget the retina display plz. its just not worth it. ur gonna make the ipad more expensive than the freaking MB.

 

[XboxEvolved]

woah... this topic just exploded in my face today! lots of posts. and forget the retina display plz. its just not worth it. ur gonna make the ipad more expensive than the freaking MB.

I think I've asked this a few times, but explain to me why you think this and how that would be.

 

[George Knighton]

and forget the retina display plz. its just not worth it.

The people who say that the Retina Display isn't worth it...do you own an iPhone 4?

It's amazing the tiny text you can read on an iPhone that is illegible on an Android device with a larger screen.

Of course, we have to be bound to logic. If a 10" Retina Display and its more powerful processor are just too expensive, then that's the way it is and we will have to do without it. But we're paying close to $900 for a 64 GB 3G iPad as it is, and it seems to me the market for a deluxe iPad might be out there.

But, what do I know.

 

[retroneo]

I hope they offer versions without cameras, too - there are a number of businesses that don't allow products with cameras for security reasons and this market is basically out of Apple's reach due to every product having a camera...

Apple has two solutions for you:

1. Using a Microsoft Exchange Server (Including Office365 and Exchange Online) you can set a policy for your users that disables the camera.

2. The iPhone has the cameras designed in such a way that they are readily detachable internally. I believe you can ask for this to be done at the Apple Store, the same way they offer removal for Macs. Otherwise, any corner phone repair kiosk can do it for you.

 

[iJoeB]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

Well, I already have mine... but if Apple were to make a breakthrough sequel, I could see myself going out to get it. Only time will tell, I could see it being released on the 1 year anniversary of the announcement of the 1st Gen (late Jan, just sayin)

 

[poloponies]

I think I've asked this a few times, but explain to me why you think this and how that would be.

Because you're treating the "retina display" as if it was a roll of toilet paper. You don't just pull off more sheets at the same per-sheet cost to make a bigger display. So a $30 display component on the iPhone isn't $90 if you make it 3 times the size. If iSuppli is to be believed then the current iPad display's cost is $95. To build the iPhone display at that size is going to be much more expensive because it's a far more complicated technology. According to rumors surrounding the early iPad manufacturing bottleneck they were having a hard enough time getting sufficient yield rates (# of usable, error-free screens per batch) with the current screen. Add to that the added circuitry to run the display (souped-up graphics processor) and the added drain to the battery and your imagined $60 extra cost is probably a couple of hundred dollars (and likely more). That's EXTRA cost on top of the $95 they currently spend. And even if it was $200, then $200 to Apple is easily $400 to the consumer.

Apple will be facing some competition on the iPad in 2011 and the answer is not increasing the iPad's cost by $400.

 

[clyde2801]

[...And even if it was $200, then $200 to Apple is easily $400 to the consumer....]

Word.

 

[George Knighton]

Apple will be facing some competition on the iPad in 2011 and the answer is not increasing the iPad's cost by $400.

Thank you for explaining in detail.

I think some of us would have accepted another $100 for a Retina Display and the processor to run it.

I don't think many of us would accept $400.

 

[poloponies]

Thank you for explaining in detail.

I think some of us would have accepted another $100 for a Retina Display and the processor to run it.

I don't think many of us would accept $400.

My numbers are pure conjecture, I may be well under the real cost given the current state of the technology or possibly even over. But anyone who thinks it's trivial isn't thinking things through.

 

[doberman211]

exactly. its not worth it in the end. for what? a 1080p display? why? and yes i have an iphone 4

 

[aluren]

$400 seems like a good logical estimate for the retina display. I actually wouldn't mind paying $900 for a 16GB iPad with retina display. However, that's probably not happening. I do hope they update the screen, it doesn't have to be 4x the resolution of the current iPad, even a slight bump would be awesome if it's not too costly.

 

[gnychis]

i'm happy with the current ipad's screen resolution

 

[George Knighton]

i'm happy with the current ipad's screen resolution

When the iPad came out, people raved for hours about the wonderful display.

But...once you know that the extremely high pixel density is a possibility, once you have seen a movie on an iPhone 4 and think about it being on the iPad at the same density, the iPad resolution doesn't seem like enough.

It is, of course. When I am away, I watch movies on the iPad all the time because it's just a lot easier than any other way, and it looks fine.

We are the Public, however, and we always want more. For less, of course.

 

[7thMac]

What's the point of a back-mounted camera? The form factor and weight would seem to make this a very awkward feature.

 

[icanboogie]

the next ipad will only have one new feature, but that will be something totally "awesome" & "magical" which we "will never forget":

a Beatles App!



yeah: the Magical Mystery App...

(Sorry, still a bit unimpressed by the loudmouth-announcement for today's Beatles-itunes-addition)

 

[Sydde]

The iPad camera will be a unique design specifically tailored to handle the difficulties of the large form factor. The lens will be a cylinder at the very top edge of the case; the CCD will be a special layout that uses interference computation to derive a flat image from a 270° range. Hence, one camera will serve for facetime as well as image capture: in the latter case, you will drag the image on the screen to line up what you want. You wlii be able to hold the iPad at a near horizontal angle to take a picture straight ahead of you.

 

[EssentialParado]

It's a case of moving forward, and it's what we have (as users) to thank competition for.

It does not matter what Apple may in their ideal world offer it's customers.

If most/all other tablets come out with camera's then Apple will have to also offer it's customers the same, otherwise they will lose some custom.

Never, ever have Apple worked this way; I've never known them to compete on specs or features regardless of their use. Even if every consumer device on the planet grew a rear facing camera, if Apple doesn't think it's useful in the iPad, it won't be in the iPad.

 

[doberman211]

i only see a facetime camera as far as video changes goes. a rear-view camera? really? just turn the damn ipad around!

 

[XboxEvolved]

Because you're treating the "retina display" as if it was a roll of toilet paper. You don't just pull off more sheets at the same per-sheet cost to make a bigger display. So a $30 display component on the iPhone isn't $90 if you make it 3 times the size. If iSuppli is to be believed then the current iPad display's cost is $95. To build the iPhone display at that size is going to be much more expensive because it's a far more complicated technology. According to rumors surrounding the early iPad manufacturing bottleneck they were having a hard enough time getting sufficient yield rates (# of usable, error-free screens per batch) with the current screen. Add to that the added circuitry to run the display (souped-up graphics processor) and the added drain to the battery and your imagined $60 extra cost is probably a couple of hundred dollars (and likely more). That's EXTRA cost on top of the $95 they currently spend. And even if it was $200, then $200 to Apple is easily $400 to the consumer.

Apple will be facing some competition on the iPad in 2011 and the answer is not increasing the iPad's cost by $400.

Sounds to me like you are just trying to make something you don't understand more complicated than it needs to be. How would it be a drain on battery life?

Also I didn't even think to look up iSuppli's pricing of parts (which is actually $80 not $95) for a total manufacturing cost at the beginning of the iPad's life of $230 they have over double the profit. What are the chances that all of these parts still cost this much for Apple? Not very likely. Nice try but still doesn't explain it.

 

[Ciclismo]

Sounds to me like you are just trying to make something you don't understand more complicated than it needs to be. How would it be a drain on battery life?

Also I didn't even think to look up iSuppli's pricing of parts (which is actually $80 not $95) for a total manufacturing cost at the beginning of the iPad's life of $230 they have over double the profit. What are the chances that all of these parts still cost this much for Apple? Not very likely. Nice try but still doesn't explain it.

Battery life would be adversly affected by the fact that the display would require more electricity to drive it (fact of life: low res. screens use less power than same size higher res. screens), but it would also require a rather powerful graphics processor to display fluid images at the proposed resolution. Unless you are cool with Apple adding a much larger battery.

And before you go slagging off someone for makeing an alternative to your oversimplified analysis, what do you think makes more sense - cost marginally increasing in a linear fashion (as you propose) or exponentially (as suggested by others)? Because it it were the former, then why do we not see a slew of proposed tablets from other manufacturers with "Retina" displays?

 

[poloponies]

Sounds to me like you are just trying to make something you don't understand more complicated than it needs to be. How would it be a drain on battery life?

Also I didn't even think to look up iSuppli's pricing of parts (which is actually $80 not $95) for a total manufacturing cost at the beginning of the iPad's life of $230 they have over double the profit. What are the chances that all of these parts still cost this much for Apple? Not very likely. Nice try but still doesn't explain it.

For someone who can't figure out why a higher resolution display with a beefed up GPU doesn't affect battery usage you're suddenly an authority on everything, aren't you? iSuppli is a guesstimate, they know very little about actual costs. And your thinking that Apple's costs are plummeting is similarly unfounded. The dollar has been dropping since the summer so supplier costs are up, or, at best, flat. Foxconn also raised prices in October.

The bottom line is your methodology of pro-rating a guesstimate of the iPhone's screen pricing to make assumptions about iPad pricing is deeply flawed.

 

[Coukos34]

Sounds to me like you are just trying to make something you don't understand more complicated than it needs to be. How would it be a drain on battery life?

Also I didn't even think to look up iSuppli's pricing of parts (which is actually $80 not $95) for a total manufacturing cost at the beginning of the iPad's life of $230 they have over double the profit. What are the chances that all of these parts still cost this much for Apple? Not very likely. Nice try but still doesn't explain it.

Ok "smarty". I don't know why you feel you need to be convinced. Anyone with any tech intelligence knows the feasability (or lack thereof) of having a "retina display" on an iPad (for now). Someone here did the math, and the iPad having the same pixel density as the iphone 4, would equate to something around 2659 x 1772 resolution. Do you see apples next chip throwing around that resolution and getting great battery life to boot? Sorry but no. The reason that it works on the iPhone 4, is because it is a small screen, with a resolution that is still lower than that of the current iPad. The iPad gets great battery life because it runs on essentially a smartphone processor. They are underpowered but power efficient. That's not to mention how expensive the screens, and chips (if existed) would be.

If you don't understand how tech works, don't comment on what's possible. You have no idea