iPad 2 Predictions

[Built]

Geez....I can't wait.

I have about 500 bucks in Best Buy gift cards and Reward Zone points burning a hole in my pocket waiting for the 2nd gen iPad. I want one..badly...and am showing some uncharacteristic restraint in not buying the 1st gen.

I REALLY want a camera...and USB port...on the 2nd gen...

 

[Macdude2010]

I'll wait for the iPad 63 with '3D Holographic Pure Retina x360 Display' that transforms into a maid robot that can piggy back you to the pub with it's scramjet engine feet.

It's just around the corner.

Sure, 2073 is right around the corner

 

[drjsway]

People keep forgetting that the iPad is a value product, not a high end one. Consider the iPhone, which is $699 for 32GB unsubsidized, while the iPad 3G is $729. So about the same price, yet the iPad has a bigger screen, bigger battery (two in fact), with more aluminum and glass needed. There will always cost cutting going on unless they raise the price past the iPhone dramatically,

iPad 2 will most likely come out September 2011 and they will update future iPads concurrently with iPod touch. At most, you will get front camera, gyroscope, slightly faster processor, and 512 RAM. The resolution cannot change because it will break current apps (as mentioned) until Apple can do 2048x1536 (which won't be 3-4 years at an absolute minimum, 6-7 years more likely).

Future versions of iOS will be released in June for iPhone (x.0) and then for iPad three months later (x.2).

 

[INeedAMacBook]

I find those two hard to imagine. The mini display out port kinda already exists as the TV out cable (okay, as far as I know, only a component model exists but still it does the same job.) And the USB port already kinda exists as the camera connector. Why would Apple add that onto the iPad when they can make more money by selling them as add-ons?

what about the mini-usb port only work with an apple mini-usb to usb cable and sell that as an add on that'll cost like $30 lol, dunno how that would work but if apple can make more money they will find away. even if it means taking away money from the antenna research budget

 

[Dillenger]

My prediction is that when the iPad 2 is released I will be selling my 64 gig WiFi on eBay.

 

[JulianL]

People keep forgetting that the iPad is a value product, not a high end one. Consider the iPhone, which is $699 for 32GB unsubsidized, while the iPad 3G is $729. So about the same price, yet the iPad has a bigger screen, bigger battery (two in fact), with more aluminum and glass needed. There will always cost cutting going on unless they raise the price past the iPhone dramatically,

iPad 2 will most likely come out September 2011 and they will update future iPads concurrently with iPod touch. At most, you will get front camera, gyroscope, slightly faster processor, and 512 RAM. The resolution cannot change because it will break current apps (as mentioned) until Apple can do 2048x1536 (which won't be 3-4 years at an absolute minimum, 6-7 years more likely).

Future versions of iOS will be released in June for iPhone (x.0) and then for iPad three months later (x.2).

Those are all excellent points. On your prediction of September iPad updates (starting in 2011 as you sensibly said), I can see arguments for and against that one.

FOR - If the iPhone stays as Apple's key mobile device then shifting the iPad new version announcements from April-ish to September avoids them stealing some of the iPhone thunder since each new iPad will, in my view, have that year's new SoC (e.g. the iPad was our first look at the A4 and not the iPhone). I suspect Apple would prefer to keep that surprise for the iPhone launches.

AGAINST - The spacing is quite nice as it is now for having major hype-generating events spread fairly evenly throughout the year. Shifting the iPad launches leaves a long dead zone each year regarding iDevice announcements.

Personally I think that the AGAINST argument outweighs the FOR argument so I'd be interested in what other reasons you have for thinking that the iPad announcements will shift to September. I really don't see a huge synergy with the Touch since the form factor and screen size are so different. They're aimed at different markets.

- Julian

 

[Full of Win]

I don't get how so many people can seriously expect the 'retina technology' from the iPhone 4 to be implemented in the iPad within one generation. 4x the resolution? Are you nuts? That would make it 2048 x 1536!

Not only would such a high resolution be a nightmare for developers (they're only just getting to grips with designing icons etc. for the current screen), it would seriously raise the computing power needed for 3D games and graphics. iPad-specific apps must run in native resolution, including 3D games, or they'll look like garbage. A game like N.O.V.A. HD or Mirror's Edge would suffer a huge frame rate hit because the hardware wouldn't be able to handle a game at such a high resolution.

If they increase it to 4X, then there is no interpolation involved, thus making your point of it looking "like garbage" moot. One pixel becomes four on the new display. 1 to 1 pixel mapping becomes EXACTLY 1:4, hence no interpolation would be required if the pixel mapping was something like 1 to 2.5.

So put a more powerful chip in, you say? Design cost and production cost. You'd need a far more powerful chipset. Not gonna happen in one generation.

The A4 chip can only run the iPhone 4 with its retina display so well because its resolution is less than that of the iPad. I doubt the A4 would perform as well with considerably more pixels to power. Carrying this same 'technology' (it's not really a new tech, but rather just a really high pixel density) to the iPad simply isn't feasible. Not for a few years, anyway.

The LCD manufacturers only just managed to get this super-high density into a smartphone screen. It'll be a long time before they crack it for anything larger. Also bear in mind that the iPhone didn't see a resolution increase until its forth generation. I can't see the iPad getting a similar upgrade until... 3rd generation at the earliest.

Anyway, rant over. It just pains me that so many people have high hopes for this 'retina display' to make it into the iPad so quickly.

The follow-up to the CPU and GPU in the A4 chip are more capable. For example, the iPad uses a SGX535 GPU, however, the current 'top of the line' GPU of this line is the SGX545 which was released in January. Based on the release history, there will likely be at least one more GPU after this before April 2011. Granted, it would be a technological leap to do this, but will Apple have a choice if 1080p models begin to crop up? Since Apple only does only one model a year, what they release must be cutting edge, or the competition will roll over them as the year goes by. Also, I thought the challenge in making displays was more about pixel density, rather than pixel amount. If the iPad did the 4X increase, its dot pitch would still be higher (or less pixel density) than the iPhone 4 display.

 

[drjsway]

Personally I think that the AGAINST argument outweighs the FOR argument so I'd be interested in what other reasons you have for thinking that the iPad announcements will shift to September. I really don't see a huge synergy with the Touch since the form factor and screen size are so different. They're aimed at different markets.

- Julian

The reason I think they will move iPad to September is because the current iOS release schedule is x.0 in June, x.2 for iPad in the fall. If they keep iPad in April, then the new version will always be released with a 10 month old OS.

If they increase it to 4X, then there is no interpolation involved, thus making your point of it looking "like garbage" moot. One pixel becomes four on the new display. 1 to 1 pixel mapping becomes EXACTLY 1:4, hence no interpolation would be required if the pixel mapping was something like 1 to 2.5.

You really think Apple will release a $499 tablet with a higher resolution than their 27" iMac? Again, the iPad is a value product whose main competition is 1024x600 netbooks. It costs the same as an iPhone even though it's more expensive to produce.

The iPad doesn't even render 1024x768 well when it comes to 3D gaming. If Apple does put a much faster GPU in Rev B, it would be better served making games look better and run faster in 1024x768.

 

[OGDaniel]

I think they'll make a 7.5 inch version as well, with the price of that being $70 lower.

So 10" 16 GB will be $499, and 7.5" 16GB will be $429.

And also, isn't it really really expensive to manufacture those very high-res displays? I may be wrong, I don't know how much those do cost...

 

[lilcosco08]

People keep forgetting that the iPad is a value product, not a high end one. Consider the iPhone, which is $699 for 32GB unsubsidized, while the iPad 3G is $729. So about the same price, yet the iPad has a bigger screen, bigger battery (two in fact), with more aluminum and glass needed. There will always cost cutting going on unless they raise the price past the iPhone dramatically,

iPad 2 will most likely come out September 2011 and they will update future iPads concurrently with iPod touch. At most, you will get front camera, gyroscope, slightly faster processor, and 512 RAM. The resolution cannot change because it will break current apps (as mentioned) until Apple can do 2048x1536 (which won't be 3-4 years at an absolute minimum, 6-7 years more likely).

Future versions of iOS will be released in June for iPhone (x.0) and then for iPad three months later (x.2).

and still 2048x1536 isn't retinal

 

[drjsway]

and still 2048x1536 isn't retinal

Yes it is. 2048x1538 is retinal at 13" away with 20/20 vision.

 

[Full of Win]

You really think Apple will release a $499 tablet with a higher resolution than their 27" iMac? Again, the iPad is a value product whose main competition is 1024x600 netbooks. It costs the same as an iPhone even though it's more expensive to produce.

The iPad doesn't even render 1024x768 well when it comes to 3D gaming. If Apple does put a much faster GPU in Rev B, it would be better served making games look better and run faster in 1024x768.

iPad 1.0 using the A4 CPU/GPU combo is already running about ~40% of the pixels as the current 21.5 1080 iMac. I don't see why they cannot raise this higher to the level of the 27 inch. For 3D games, could dev's not make complex games at 1024 X 768 and do 1 to 4 pixel mapping on the higher res display? The iPad main competition today is the netbooks, but tomorrow it will be Android and WebOS tablets. If Apple gives us a iPhone 3G -> 3GS type upgrade, they will begin to look like they are standing still in the marketplace. Nobody knows what it will be except Apple, but the next version will have to remain modern and appealing well into 2012, and I think that will be difficult to do with the current screen resolution.

 

[l0gan5]

....

iPad 2 will most likely come out September 2011 and they will update future iPads concurrently with iPod touch. At most, you will get front camera, gyroscope, slightly faster processor, and 512 RAM. The resolution cannot change because it will break current apps (as mentioned) until Apple can do 2048x1536 (which won't be 3-4 years at an absolute minimum, 6-7 years more likely).

Future versions of iOS will be released in June for iPhone (x.0) and then for iPad three months later (x.2).

My money is on your prediction, the most logical I have seen. My only change is that it will be iPad 1.1. IPad 2 will be 2012 and we really need to see what happens next year before we can really get a feel for what that might include.

Until there is any credible competition out there I cannot see Apple making major revisions next year, it'll be an incremental update with your feature list above.

 

[JulianL]

At most, you will get front camera, gyroscope, slightly faster processor, ...

On re-reading I do disagree with one of your predictions, namely "slightly faster processor". OK, I'm being pedantic because I suspect that what you were really saying is "slight performance increase", but I think that the processor will most likely be very significantly faster.

I say this on the basis that the 2011 iPad will include Apple's next version of their custom SoC and the planets will be beginning to align on this - they will have had the time to integrate the key engineers and designers from their various corporate aquisitions, they will almost certainly be moving off 45nm and onto improved fabrication processes, maybe 32nm or better with other process improvement to reduce power consumption, and of course there will be architectural improvements at least equivalent to what we already know about in Cortex A9 and almost certainly more than that coming from their in house expertise which, as already mentioned, is now substantial. I expect that all these things together will yield at least a 150% boost in performance at the same power draw and probably more.

On the basis that I agree that Retina is way off in terms of being technologically possible and affordable for Apple to put into the iPad then the question becomes, will Apple deliver all this performance increase to the user? My guess is that they won't so if I re-interpret your prediction as "slight performance increase" then I agree, the performance bump will be relatively modest, but what will Apple do with what's left in the tank? It seems to me that they have two choices (i) downclock the SoC to extend battery life even further and (ii) reduce battery capacity while maintaining comparable battery life to the current model.

I think that how they decide to allocate their performance per Watt gains from the A5 between delivered performance, increased battery life, and reduced weight (by decreasing battery size) will be very interesting.

- Julian

 

[WLS]

The reason I think they will move iPad to September is because the current iOS release schedule is x.0 in June, x.2 for iPad in the fall. If they keep iPad in April, then the new version will always be released with a 10 month old OS.

I agree it would be the logical thing to introduce new iPads in the Fall. Some people are thinking that means there will be a new iPad THIS Fall but that is a mistaken conclusion. It will be too soon for a hardware change this Fall but next would be a reasonable time frame. I doubt that it will have a rear facing camera because of the size and awkwardness of operating it but I would expect a front facing camera so Facetime will be mostly functional just not with all the iPhone features.

 

[bigmacman]

Honestly i don't see the iPad 2 coming before 2012. Even if Apple could bring it to market, it would be unfair to first adopters to obsolete them so quickly. But no doubt many fanbois would buy a new iPad every week if that's how often they came out.

The 2nd gen iPad should arrive next Apr. It's highly likely that iPad will follow the iPhone and iPod on an annual refresh schedule.

 

[Dorv]

And with Mac OS 10.7 please. I'm really tired of having no useful desktop or customisation. Also slightly thinner black borders and definitely lighter. Oh, also please stop those bloody fingerprints!

The only thing less likely to occur than the "Retina Display on iPad" is this on iPad.

 

[GinoDotCom]

Hang on - it's only been out 3 months in the US and less than 2 months everywhere else it has been launched (some of which were only released a few days ago).

It would be commercial suicide for Apple to update it now. Not just irate users, but why would they need to when there is no real competition yet and it's selling like hot cakes with trouble trying to keep up with demand.

This.

Expect to see an iPad2 no earlier than April 2011.

 

[GinoDotCom]

Might have to be cheaper....

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-south-asia-10740817

That will never happen.

 

[starbot]

Yes it is. 2048x1538 is retinal at 13" away with 20/20 vision.

WTF are you people talking about!? To the above poster, where's your math?

I understand what you are trying to say, but for god's sake, retinal has nothing at all to do with having pixels too small to see. You guys are actually taking some marketing lingo and using it as a real word. And to be honest, it makes you sound quite foolish and naive.


FYI http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retinal

 

[WLS]

I think that how they decide to allocate their performance per Watt gains from the A5 between delivered performance, increased battery life, and reduced weight (by decreasing battery size) will be very interesting.

- Julian

Good thoughts. I would have to say that from what we know of Apple's design philosophy the choice between longer battery life which is already excellent and smaller battery would clearly be to go with a still thinner lighter design and the smaller battery.It's what they do..

 

[tunerX]

if there is no viable iPad alternative in the near future, I don't see how apple would even have a need to do a refresh until competition gets stiffer.

MS just signed an Architectural agreement with ARM... Hopefully it is to build a competitive product. Then we will see some good feature wars.

 

[metropolitim]

The world is flat

The next iPad will be flat, like the iPhone 4.

It's funny, the curved back thing really did feel sleek and modern when it first came out on the iPhone, and I'm absolutely amazed at how much more elegant the flat shape feels. It also allows a lot more room inside, and I think is a big part of how much more processing the iPhone 4 can do.

Unfortunately, holding a call is not a function of processing power.

(Mine's mostly fine, but I still love joking about it.)

re: displays, wow, move along. ALL displays are "retinal." You see them with your retinas. No retina, no display. Before iPhone 4, NOBODY was talking the meager res on iPads! They were talking about how tiny the iPhone screen seems in comparison...and it still does! It's tiny!!! Doesn't matter how many pixels deep it is - it's still TINY!

In the meantime, the "retinal display" chatter is smoke and mirrors meant to distract the gullible and the competition, which is going to have to answer whether or not it's nonsense. The point is that iPhone 4 screens look better than iPhone 3 screens -- which they definitely do -- and other people's screens - which they mostly do.

And the iPad looks better than all of them.

Also worth remembering: it would reasonable to expect full HD res on the MacBook Pro, except that Steve has said it's never going to happen. Translation: until it does. But the point being, res isn't actually at the top of the list of things to do, nor should it be.

The problem I have with how the iPad looks is that there's too much wasted space on the desktop. Folders for app icons will definitely help, but six in the dock? Ridiculous.

re: 3D - have you tried anaglyph glasses with Pinball 3D? Awesome. The problem for better 3D isn't the number of pixels. It's the refresh rate, and at least currently for the best passive 3D, lack of polarization. Until there's an active emitter of some sort, whether on the iPad (highly unlikely) or a 3rd party (still pretty unlikely), anaglyph is what we have, and it's really wonderful.


Coming back to the beginning, I would really love to see a flat iPad. Maybe more than anything else, that would make me buy iPad 2 instead of my typical pattern of waiting for #3.

That's me - someone who sees through Apple's marketing BS and mocks it openly, and who will pay virtually any price for something pretty.

 

[drjsway]

WTF are you people talking about!? To the above poster, where's your math?]

This is my math.

20/20 vision = 1 arcminute = 3438'. 13 inches/3438 = .00378 inch per pixel
2048x1536 at 9.7" = 264 ppi. 1/264 = .00378 inch per pixel

 

[AppleHater]

My prediction is that when the iPad 2 is released I will be selling my 64 gig WiFi on eBay.

And, Apple will be busy planning for iPad3 in 2012. Have fun playing catch up every year.