Next iPad to Add Five New Features including USB Port?

[MrWillie]

Why the he** is the EU making a LAW about what kind of charging interface a phone should have? Shouldn't that kind of choice be made by device manufacturers at their own peril?

And like others have pointed out: The law allows for dongles AND the iPad isn't a phone. There's a 0% chance of a USB port appearing on any Apple iPad ever.

They are making things simpler for the people. I have a drawer with 20 phone chargers. All different.

Over there, one charger will charge all makes of phones. Left your charger at home or work ? Use someone elses. I bet if you lose your charger or want a car charger, you won't have to pay $40 for it either.

I wish they would do that here, instead of dictating what health plan I have to buy and excluding themselves from it.

 

[fxtech]

I wish they would do that here, instead of dictating what health plan I have to buy and excluding themselves from it.

Agreed. But nobody is dictating to you what health plan you have to buy. If you believe that, you're drinking an entirely different kind of Kool-aid than the usual kind here.

 

[Mattsasa]

I really want to know! Will there be a media event for this update or will it be a silent update? Will we see the update coming or? Or will it be a surprise like the aluminum Mac mini?

I need to know so I can time when I sell my 1st gen iPad.

 

[iDarbert]

Retina display? Not gonna happen. I highly doubt that a mobile GPU can handle that many pixels and still provide good performance and battery life. Unless Apple pulls a major trick out of its hat.

It would be awesome, really awesome, but I don't see it happening just yet. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though, I can barely look at my iPad now that I'm used to the retina display.

 

[efirmage]

It would be awesome, really awesome, but I don't see it happening just yet. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though, I can barely look at my iPad now that I'm used to the retina display.

Sad but true. Looks so grainy. USB would blow my mind, the others are expected.

 

[Full of Win]

I'll settle for 512 MB of RAM, Facetime cameras, and a modest increase in resolution. No need to get overly excited over huge spec increases. Overly high expectations leads to more unhappiness on this forum.

So what you are saying is that we should not be expecting an iPad with 4X the pixels, 2X the CPU speed, 2/3 the weight and 2X the battery life.... for 30% less cost? But its so fun to gripe when its not released.

 

[SactoGuy18]

I still think Apple will probably roll out to developers very soon a beta of iOS 4.x that will be resolution independent, so it could support either 1280x768 or 1280x960 for the next-generation circa 10" (diagonal) display on the 2G iPad.

Besides, with a higher resolution display, it makes the iPad much more viable as an ebook reader.

 

[3goldens]

Word has it flash will be supported.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

Increasing the pixel density will not tax the Battery. That will happen.

The USB will depend upon the thickness of the device. Otherwise, it'll be a portrait side interface that is pre-existing with the iPad 1.0 release.

I see the rest being in already.

 

[mdriftmeyer]

They do. All coordinates are in POINTS, not pixels. They could increment the iPad resolution to anything they wanted, even short of Retina, and scale everything accordingly. The nice thing is they could use Retina assets from Retina-supporting iPhone 4 apps and just scale them down to the appropriate size - but they would be almost as crisp as native resolution.

However, if they do increase the resolution, don't expect Retina. They'd need 1GB of RAM and a GPU at least twice as fast as the current one to pull off a similar level of performance. But I fully expect having to re-do all of my icons AGAIN at yet another size. Apple won't be happy until all available memory is taken up by 26 different icon sizes for all the various screen sizes they support.

Aiden should research the Quartz APIs before he proclaims to know whether or not the OS is already capable of support RI--which it has been for some time.

 

[cyberthom]

Why the he** is the EU making a LAW about what kind of charging interface a phone should have? Shouldn't that kind of choice be made by device manufacturers at their own peril?

yeh exactly - and why the *** should there be a standard for wall sockets? shouldn't each manufacturer have its own make?

 

[Digitalclips]

USB port? No.
Retina Display? No. "Better" display? Yes.
FaceTime? Yes.
Thinner and lighter? Yes. Barely.
Gyroscope stuff? Yes.

Mine:
Slightly bigger form factor - so it will be the size of a true keyboard when in landscape mode. Currently it's a tad bit too small.
NO BACKSIDE CAMERA!!! This makes NO sense at all.

You have my vote and I'd add a camera that can function forward or rear possibly. I can't see USB in a product that is all about being wireless.

 

[Digitalclips]

Word has it flash will be supported.

The only Flash in iOS products store data

 

[URFloorMatt]

I doubt we'll get the same pixel density as the iPhone's retina display, but you can bet we'll get a resolution bump that at least makes the iPad HD compatible.

All the rest sound like no-brainer additions. USB seems unlikely.

I really want to know! Will there be a media event for this update or will it be a silent update? Will we see the update coming or? Or will it be a surprise like the aluminum Mac mini?

I need to know so I can time when I sell my 1st gen iPad.

There will be an iPad 2.0 event sometime in Q1 2011, guaranteed.

 

[cahayes2]

Retina display? Not gonna happen. I highly doubt that a mobile GPU can handle that many pixels and still provide good performance and battery life. Unless Apple pulls a major trick out of its hat.

It would be awesome, really awesome, but I don't see it happening just yet. I'd be glad to be proven wrong though, I can barely look at my iPad now that I'm used to the retina display.

Completely agreed. A 9.7 inch display at 326 ppi? Yeah, I HIGHLY doubt it. The pixel density of the current iPad is 132 ppi. A retina display would be 2.5x the amount of current pixels making it higher than 1080p resolution. An iPad having higher resolution than my 21.5" iMac? Again, I HIGHLY doubt it.

 

[Bytor65]

Increasing the pixel density will not tax the Battery. That will happen.
.

Assuming people are blathering about Retina in this context as double resolution like iP3->iP4.

Yes it will increase the battery draw, even displaying a static image, because the back-plane is active transistor controlled. Double the resolution and you quadruple the transistors.

But that is the minor part. Moving around 4x times as many pixels, means Apple needs a GPU that is 4x as powerful to maintain same smoothness, that is going to draw a lot more power.

But this is really a nonsense discussion. They aren't going to put more pixels in an iPad than a Macbook pro, no matter how much the fanboys gush about it.

 

[vincenz]

USB?? Can't really see that happening. Not if they can make an extra $30 on an adapter.

 

[DELLsFan]

I may not get my wish for a 7" iPad ... but if this baby is significantly thinner and lighter - with all those other improvements, I think I can roll with the 2G iPad.

 

[Sn00py]

I will await the next version, I am really looking forward to more ram and faster CPU speed.

 

[SandynJosh]

I can't believe there are really that many people forgetting their chargers in europe.

I don't think that's it... Do you have any idea how hard it is to resell a stolen phone without the proper adapter??

 

[coleridge78]

displays easy and cheap?

A lot of talk in this thread seems to think that, since the "Retina display" is available for the iPhone, it is feasible to put it in on the iPad. That the cost between the two has a linear relationship, that is, if the area is twice as large, the cost is twice as much. This is far from the truth.

These displays, like anything manufactured as a matrix (e.g. digital camera sensors), have QC limits for percentage of bad pixels. For Apple retail purposes, that percentage is nearly zero. Producing a matrix of equal density but greater area involves much more than a linear cost increase, particularly early in the life of a technology. Why? Because, if there are four times as many pixels (twice the linear density at the same physical size), the chance of a given unit crossing the QC threshold increases by four. That's four times as many units that you're scrapping during the manufacturing process.

Density equal to the iPhone 4 at an iPad size would retail for thousands of dollars right now. It won't happen. What may happen, as others have said, is a "Retina display" based on the discernible pixel density at the greater average viewing distance of an iPad (vs. an iPhone).

 

[Benguitar]

I think if Apple adds any new features to the iPad USB won't be on the top of their list.

I'd expect FaceTime HD camera before a USB Port.

 

[commander.data]

The nice thing is they could use Retina assets from Retina-supporting iPhone 4 apps and just scale them down to the appropriate size - but they would be almost as crisp as native resolution.

At 1024x768 the iPad already has a higher resolution than the Retina supporting iPhone 4 so a "Retina" iPad would not want to be using existing iPhone 4 assets.

 

[huntercr]

retna display come with florida swamp land?

They may call it something like "retina inspired display" or may even cheat and call it a retina display, but retina display meaning 326 pixels per inch will never happen in 2011 for iPad. On the iPad screen dimensions, that would be close to 2560x1856 display size!
Developers just got used to the higher def resolution and now Appl ewill be doing higher than 1080p? On a device that's cheaper than the cheapest iMac? I seriously doubt this.

it doesn't make sense fo the developers, it doesn't make sense to stay competitive with other devices, it doesn't make sense for Apple cannibalizing products, it doesn't make sense.

This is an interative improvement year for ipad... there's no reason to change the feature set beyond the simple additions.. camera for face time.. MAYBE the usb port , give an uptick on the CPU... make it a tiny bit lighter maybe.
Think about it from Apple's perspective. Why play all of your good cards when there is no one who can even play the game against you yet?

 

[mdriftmeyer]

A lot of talk in this thread seems to think that, since the "Retina display" is available for the iPhone, it is feasible to put it in on the iPad. That the cost between the two has a linear relationship, that is, if the area is twice as large, the cost is twice as much. This is far from the truth.

These displays, like anything manufactured as a matrix (e.g. digital camera sensors), have QC limits for percentage of bad pixels. For Apple retail purposes, that percentage is nearly zero. Producing a matrix of equal density but greater area involves much more than a linear cost increase, particularly early in the life of a technology. Why? Because, if there are four times as many pixels (twice the linear density at the same physical size), the chance of a given unit crossing the QC threshold increases by four. That's four times as many units that you're scrapping during the manufacturing process.

Density equal to the iPhone 4 at an iPad size would retail for thousands of dollars right now. It won't happen. What may happen, as others have said, is a "Retina display" based on the discernible pixel density at the greater average viewing distance of an iPad (vs. an iPhone).

Apple's panel provider, LG, showing the world LED at 72" and thinner than the iPhone.

http://infinia.lge.com/archives/2007