Print 29 comment(s) - last by retrospooty.. on Jun 19 at 11:45 PM

Mockups show some slight changes to Apple's flagship tablet

All of the attention on Apple’s next generation iOS devices has been focused on the iPhone 6, which is supposed to be available in both 4.7” and 5.5” screen sizes.
However, Apple is gearing up for a refresh of its iPad Air and iPad mini tablet families as well this fall. Not to be left out of the leaking game, claims to have gotten its hands on some unfinished mockups of the second generation iPad Air.

The look is quite familiar for those that have handled Apple’s flagship tablet, but this new model included Touch ID (introduced last year with the iPhone 5S). Other notable changed include a redesigned layout for the bottom-mounted speaker grilles and recessed buttons for the power and volume controls. That last point is seen a plus for those that routinely use the device in landscape mode and find themselves hitting the buttons by mistake in their current, “raised” placement.

A final note is the round hole that is positioned where the Orientation Lock/Mute button is usually placed. Mac Rumors explains that peculiarity, stating, “Unfinished [prototype] and mockup parts sometimes feature these pilot holes to guide machining of the final hole.”

Sources:, Mac Rumors

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By luv2liv on 6/17/2014 5:53:31 PM , Rating: 3
shockingly it looks same as all the past tablet from apple. guess they not making circular tablet any time soon

RE: shocking!
By Reclaimer77 on 6/17/2014 6:55:30 PM , Rating: 1
They could have gotten with the rest of the planet who already figured out 4:3 is fuc*#$@ stupid. Just an idea.

And before you people rush to defend it, remember, you probably also said 3.5" was all the screen anyone would ever need on a phone too.

RE: shocking!
By peterrushkin on 6/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: shocking!
By amanojaku on 6/17/2014 11:03:36 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure why people on this site get downvoted when someone tells the truth.
You're new here, so it's no surprise you don't know what's going on. Comment scores are supposed to be based on the quality of what you wrote, and often times your scores reflect that.

However, scores will most often reflect people's opinions rather than the quality of the statement. "Apple sucks" will likely be voted up because many people on this site hate Apple. The statement doesn't provide anything meaningful and is therefore of no quality, but it resonates with the beliefs of many. I believe Apple sucks, but I would not rate up a comment that doesn't qualify why. Years ago I thought Apple was awesome; I think I even said I loved my G4 PowerBook in one of my earliest DT posts. In time I've come to believe the opposite, and I explain why whenever I say "Apple sucks". If I'm rated down, it's either because I didn't explain myself well, or my explanation is without merit. As much as I hate Apple, I recently explained why I thought Apple was more successful selling iOS devices than Google is selling Android despite Android's massive market share. People were offended because I wasn't criticizing Apple.

Scores also reflect how other people on this site view you, the poster. Reclaimer, like many others, has a history of abrasive posts against other users. Just today he overreacted to something I said and started to get hostile. Not a crime, but it rubs a lot of people the wrong way. So when he posts anything he almost always is at risk of being voted down. People just see his name and aim for the "Not worth reading" link. I've seen plenty of perfectly reasonable statements from Reclaimer get rated down just because he said it. Same thing with Tony Swash due to his shilling, and Argon18 due to his trolling.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/18/2014 9:43:30 AM , Rating: 2
4:3 is a superior tablet aspect ratio. The best. The Surface Pro 3's 3:2 is pretty good. "The rest of the world" uses 16:10 and 16:9, which SUCK by comparison. You're a crazy person.

RE: shocking!
By KoolAidMan1 on 6/18/2014 3:20:32 PM , Rating: 2
Smaller screens used in landscape benefit from taller aspect ratios. The only people who think 16:9 is good on tablets are people easily fooled by marketing and have no idea what is better in real life usage.

16:9 on tablets and laptops is the worst.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/18/2014 6:44:50 PM , Rating: 2
You guys are hilarious... You keep using words like "superior" to describe something that is purely a matter of the users taste. You cant say 4:3 is superior to 16:10, or vise versa any more than you can say blue cars are superior to red ones. It's just a usage question and what the user prefers.

RE: shocking!
By atechfan on 6/19/2014 7:19:47 AM , Rating: 2
They are just responding to yet another dumb statement by reclaimer77. He's the one who started the aspect ratio fight here. If all you do is watch movies on you tablet, 16:9 might be a good aspect ratio, but for everything else, it sucks, just like it does on monitors.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 8:35:58 AM , Rating: 2
I dont see anyone here (nor have I ever seen anyone) saying they like 16:9 ... 16:10 however is what most tablets use and is quite good. I actually prefer it.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 8:20:30 AM , Rating: 2
A usage question? lol, What usage calls for 16:9 other than YouTube? What are these? Portable DVD players?

When one uses a 16:9 tablet in portrait mode, he is immediately informed of the objective superiority of 4:3.

16:9 works for desktop monitors because you only use them in landscape, and the ones you do use in portrait are for things you'd never do with a tablet. Face it, 16:10/9 on a tablet is a mismatch of form and function.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 8:40:10 AM , Rating: 2
Who mentioned 16:9 ? No-one.

16:10 works extremely well, especially in 7-8 inch range. You can still hold it firmly in one hand. I use my 8.3 inch G-Pad like a phone. Portrait mode. It works great if the res is high enough. 1280x800 is limiting but any decent tablet has at least 1920x1200 and that makes it very useable. I wish to hell 16:10 would come back in dt/lt monitors.

Like I said, its a personal preference. Obviously alot of people like 4:3 and alot dont... You would be hard pressed to find anyone stating they prefer 16:9 .

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 8:55:05 AM , Rating: 2
16:10 is better for a tablet than 16:9, but it isn't really all that great still. 4:3 is great. 3:2 is great, probably even better than 4:3. 7:5 might be the best, if anyone would ever try it.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 9:03:38 AM , Rating: 2
Again, it's a matter of preference.

"4:3 is great. 3:2 is great, probably even better than 4:3. 7:5 might be the best,"

This makes no sense mathematically speaking. 3:2 is closer to 16:10 than it is 4:3. If it "might be better", how could 7:5 be the best, because its in the opposite direction.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 9:44:36 AM , Rating: 2
"Opposite direction" from what? Hahaha, I think you might be confused. It's not going 'toward' 1:1 that makes it better. The goal is not a square screen.

I'm basing things on history, and print media. 16:9 is based purely on video, and 16:10 let's face it is just to be close 16:9 without being quite as terrible.

Letter size paper is about 1.3, A4 paper is about 1.41, and comic books/some paperback books are about 1.53. Pretty much all print media falls between 1.3 and 1.53. That means that, probably, 1.4 is the best, being right in the middle. That's 7:5. 4:3 and 3:2 are at each end of this range. 16:10 is outside of it.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 10:04:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Opposite direction" from what?"

I meant that this statement cannot be true (even if its a personal preference)

"4:3 is great. 3:2 is great, probably even better than 4:3. 7:5 might be the best,"

Do the math.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 10:17:55 AM , Rating: 2
I just did. You can see it above.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 10:28:34 AM , Rating: 2
This is what I meant [pulls out his jr. high math skills]. The lowest common denominator of 2,3,5 is 30. So lets convert all to 30.

4:3 = 40:30
3:2 = 45:30
7:5 = 42:30
16:10 = 48:30 (for reference)

If you are looking at it in landscape mode, per your statement
4:3 / 40:30 is good
3:2 / 45:30 is even better (adding landscape/horizontal width)
7:5 / 42:30 is the best (now you just removed more than half the landscape/horizontal width you added in 3:2 above)

Now, re-reading your last post I see you seem to be chasing print media as a goal, so now it at least makes sense. But that isn't a universal goal, which is really my first point.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 11:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
"Print media" is everything else other than video. That's pretty damn universal. Video is the only thing that's smaller on 4:3, out of all visual media. That's why I put it above 16:10.

If you were going for universal universal (incl. video), it would be 3:2, being half-way between Letter and 16:9, which is why I said it's better than 4:3.

I still debate internally as to whether that makes it better than 7:5 (it probably does, really). Either way, 16:10 is not in the running.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 11:42:33 AM , Rating: 2
"Print media" is everything else other than video."

No, it isnt. What most people do on their tablets is browse the web, check email, Facebook, view videos, and run whatever apps they need. Some also read e-books. Even at that , ebooks look great on any aspect ratio mentioned, the reader apps like Kindle and others adjust perfectly to any aspect and zoom required by the user.

I get that is what you want, and that is fine, but what you want isn't a universal thing. It's purely your opinion, which is valid, but not universally.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 1:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
lmao, aside from the fact that the assertion is dubious (most languages are horizontal word-wrapped); Digital text looking "great on any ratio mentioned" is not an argument for or against anything.

That means it can't be used as an argument against my solution being universal, especially since 3:2 being the range median is the closest thing to 'universal' you'd ever get. I maintain that my answer is objective and accurate, and you're just being argumentative.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 2:10:14 PM , Rating: 2
"Digital text looking "great on any ratio mentioned" is not an argument for or against anything."

It is, because my "argument" is not for any one format, I am saying its a matter of preference and that apps and web pages adapt just fine.

" my solution being universal, especially since 3:2 being the range median is the closest thing to 'universal' you'd ever get"

I would personally be fine with 3:2... Totally looking forward to evaluating a Surface 3 as a matter of fact. 3:2 is a good "happy medium" But again, do the math... 3:2 is closer to 16:10, than it is to 4:3... So by that, you would be better off with 16:10 than 4:3 :P

But again [again] there is no universal solution, it's a matter of personal preference.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 3:10:56 PM , Rating: 2
Let's do this visually:

4:3 - Horizontal photos!
4:3 - Digital text!
3:4 - Vertical photos!
3:4 - Print text!!
3:4 - Digital text!

16:10 - Video!
16:10 - Digital text!
10:16 - I'll admit it: comic books

16:10 only works landscape. Check it out any time you see someone using an Android tablet. They only hold it landscape. Holding it portrait is like holding a sword or something. You'll see people holding the iPad both ways (though probably portrait more often) because unlike 16:10 it works well both ways. How much more universal can you get?

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 3:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
You have successfully laid out reasons why you like 4:3... Great. You should definitely use it, but note that all of those things work perfectly fine on a 16:10 screen too. Plus, like I said, most people use it to browse the web, check Facebook, send/read emails and whatever apps they download...

You haven't done anything that says your preferences should apply to everyone. It's simply not a universal need.

If we knew nothing of the entire industry and the rest of the human race, and read only this comment section on this article the one take away should be that different people have different preferences for aspect ratio. It's true in this comment section, it's true of the broader population as a whole. I dont get why you are trying to say everyone should think/want/use things the way that you do. That just isn't how it works. If we all wanted the same thing, then that one thing would be the only option anyone made.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 4:39:53 PM , Rating: 2
Note: This was over at "everyone uses Android tablets landscape only, iPads both ways." The following is for entertainment purposes only.

[he says 16:10 'works']
This is the part that makes you wrong. The statement "it works" is factually accurate, but it's also dishonest. Diagonal length (and therefore viewing area) held equal, a video (e.g.) is bigger on 16:10 and a PDF is bigger on 4:3. They're not readily interchangeable -- there is a mathematical, objective, physical difference. Considering that fact, and the difference between "video" and "everything else," 4:3 is of greater use. Physically.

[tries to hide behind 'the web']
Websites also target particular sizes. Most used to target XGA (4:3!), but now they 'reflow' at different horizontal resolutions. Again, most languages are horizontal and word-wrapping, so a sheet is going to work better than a sword.

If I wasn't right about all of this stuff, you wouldn't have bothered to say 16:10 was better than 16:9. Your argument works for 16:9 too, which means either 16:9 tablets 'work' and are terrific, or your argument is invalid.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 5:11:49 PM , Rating: 2
Your whole premise is off, as it is a matter of personal preference. Like I said... I dont get why you are trying to say everyone should think/want/use things the way that you do. That just isn't how it works. If we all wanted the same thing, then that one thing would be the only option any OEM's made.

The only thing you are doing here is showing why YOU prefer it at 4:3. We get that, but it makes no difference what your opinion is for other people. FWIW I don't like 4:3 or 16x9... I agree with you completely that 3:2 will be great. But if my choice is between 4:3 and 16:10, I choose 16: 10... BTW, that is my choice as I have an iPad 4 at 4:3 and a Gpad 8.3 at 16:10... I really honestly prefer the Gpad's aspect ratio. I will leave it at that.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 5:30:24 PM , Rating: 2
Also, I forgot to add - "This was over at "everyone uses Android tablets landscape only, iPads both ways."

I don't know who said that or why you would think it, but it's not at all true. I use my Gpad in portrait primarily. I pretty much only go landscape when watching video.

RE: shocking!
By karimtemple on 6/19/2014 7:28:50 PM , Rating: 2
At that size, people use everything primarily portrait, including 16:9 tablets. Most phones are 16:9 too (the iPhone is even thinner!). That wasn't what I was talking about, but you're right, I didn't specify that.

RE: shocking!
By retrospooty on 6/19/2014 11:45:56 PM , Rating: 2
OK, but I had a 10 inch 2560x1600 Nexus 10 for a while and used it that way too. Not everyone uses everything exactly like you. Personal preference.

RE: shocking!
By chripuck on 6/18/2014 1:30:21 PM , Rating: 2
You're insane, 4:3 or the likes is far superior to 16x9. I have a 4:3 Android tablet (Touchpad with CM) and a 16x9 Win 8 tablet and it's no competition, the 4:3 is far superior.

"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki