backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by Wolfpup.. on Jan 4 at 5:44 PM


  (Source: applenerd.net)
iPad 2 successor possibly to hit stores as early as February

While this can be lumped squarely in the "unconfirmed" column, rumors have begun swirling about the possibility of Apple's next-generation tablet, the iPad 3, launching within the next "three to four months."

Anonymous sources in the supply chain are cited by DigiTimes saying that the parts and components for the iPad 3 are being delivered to OEM contractors while reducing deliveries for the iPad 2. 

"OEM production of iPad 2 will remain high at 14-15 million units in the fourth quarter of 2011 but decline to 4-5 million units in the first quarter of 2012, paving the way for the launch of the new iPads," DigiTimes writes.

The rumors are bolstered by further reports from a Chinese Commercial Times report that says Foxconn will begin production on the new models in January, and increasing production by February.

The aforementioned anonymous supply-chain sources say that anywhere from 9.5 to 9.8 million units of the iPad 3 will be produced in Q1 of 2012.

Another report from last week, this one from the L.A. Times, cited February as the target launch date, so the new timeframe isn't too far off. 

According to the Times, the iPad 3 will be similar to its predecessor, but will include Apple's retina display, doubling the resolution found on the current model.

The original iPad launched in April 2010. The iPad 2 launched in March 2011. If Apple's 11-month trend for next generation of its popular tablet continues, February 2012 would be the target.

With increased competition in the tablet market from the likes of Microsoft and additional Android offerings, Apple might be feeling a sense of urgency to stay ahead of the curve if it wants to hold on to its tablet market share.

Sources: DigiTimes, LA Times



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: 3 million pixels
By Denigrate on 12/12/2011 10:31:40 AM , Rating: 3
I guess you don't shop the many deal sites out there? You can find a 1920 x 1200 LCD display for around $200-250 most days. Are you talking about smaller LCDs?

If Apple really does double the resolution on the iPad3, it'll be something to talk about. I love the 1280 X 800 display on my Icer Iconia A500, but would love to see a crazy resolution like 2048 X 1536. Pixel density would be out of this world.


RE: 3 million pixels
By MrTeal on 12/12/2011 10:39:30 AM , Rating: 2
I never see them that cheap, unless they're a refurb or a TN. There's a few crappy TN panels from brands like Hannspree around the $250 mark, but that's definitely not something I'd want to stare at for 9 hours a day.


RE: 3 million pixels
RE: 3 million pixels
By Rukkian on 12/12/2011 12:14:55 PM , Rating: 2
That is not 1920x1200, it is the lower 1080P (1920x1080) that is all you really see anymore and which is bad for actual work.


RE: 3 million pixels
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/12/2011 12:29:47 PM , Rating: 2
RE: 3 million pixels
By Jedi2155 on 12/12/2011 12:57:57 PM , Rating: 2
That's still a TN based panel rather than an IPS or MVA screen.


RE: 3 million pixels
By Cheesew1z69 on 12/13/2011 6:00:30 PM , Rating: 3
Per the OP...

quote:
but even finding a 1920x1200 monitor for $400 is tough, to say nothing of higher resolutions.


And I posted link...299, much less than the 400 quoted.


RE: 3 million pixels
By BansheeX on 12/12/2011 2:02:13 PM , Rating: 4
First of all, a 10% difference in resolution is hardly the difference between usable and unusable. Most laptops are well below 1080p, does that make them impossible to work on?

Second of all, if people cling to this deviant aspect that is slightly taller than 16:9, then a powerpoint or recorded desktop is going to get cut off on a larger display or projector, because they don't make deviant aspects like 16:10 at those sizes.

Maybe someday they'll release a monitor double the res of 1080p and you resolution junkies will be satiated. Then again, maybe nothing is enough for you.


RE: 3 million pixels
By Solandri on 12/12/2011 4:49:57 PM , Rating: 5
Most android tablets are 16:10. 1280x800 is currently the most common high-tier Android tablet resolution.

16:10 is a better compromise (less wasted screen space) between widescreen movies (landscape mode) and 8.5x11 paper (portrait mode). 16:9 excels at movies but sucks for paper. 4:3 (iPad) excels at paper but sucks for movies.

Two 8.5"x11" pages (Word or Illustrator or PDF) opened side-by-side are 17"x11", or a 1.55 aspect ratio. The 1.6 aspect ratio of 16:10 fits this almost perfectly - just add a small gutter space between the two pages. The 1.78 aspect ratio of 16:9 is too wide, so you either have wasted space on the sides, or you have to scroll up and down. It's made even worse if you have menus and a taskbar taking up space along the top and bottom.

The sensors in DSLRs have a 1.5 aspect ratio (35mm film is 36mm x 24mm). Again, 16:10 fits this better (6.7% wasted space) than 16:9 (18.5% wasted space). (And before you say cameras should shoot in 16:9, the ideal aspect ratio for a camera is 1:1 because the image generated by the lens is a circle. Any deviation from 1:1 and you're wasting light being focused by the optics but not falling on the sensor. Even the 1.5 aspect ratio DSLRs don't achieve 1.5 by picking up extra light at the sides. They achieve it by throwing away light at the top and bottom.)

The extra 120 pixels is crucial if you're editing 16:9 HD home movies. Otherwise you're not viewing the movie at full native resolution, or your editing tools / movie time bar are covered up, or you need a second monitor.

Editing portrait mode photos on a 16:9 sucks if you don't have a monitor which can tilt 90 degrees. It sucks on a 16:10 too, but it sucks 11% less.

Until the latest 27" monitors were released (2560x1440), monitors larger than 1920x1200 were also all 16:10 (2560x1600). So it's the powerpoints made in 16:9 which get cut off on these larger displays.

16:9 makes sense for TVs because all you ever do is watch TV/movies on them. But 16:10 is better for monitors and displays where you have to interact with what's on the screen. Unless you like scrolling.

1920x1200 is better at just about everything than 1920x1080, except HDTV/movies and cost.


RE: 3 million pixels
By BansheeX on 12/13/11, Rating: 0
RE: 3 million pixels
By dawza on 12/14/2011 12:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
Let's forget about aspect ratio for a second and focus on what we all agree with-- which is the importance of resolution.

The issue is not so much that 16:9 has become the standard over 16:10 (for PC displays); the problem is that the shift in AR has almost inevitably comes at the cost of total pixels. There are exceptions, such as 1280x800-->1366x768, but in general, total pixel count has decreased as AR has increased: 1400x1050-->1440x900, 1600x1200-->1680x1050-->1600x900; 1920x1200-->1920x1080.

In cases where we got a slight increase in horizontal along with a modest decrease in vertical resolution, an argument can be made either way. However, when vertical resolution is straight-out cut, and particularly when this means that the previous standard becomes less popular/more expensive, I consider it unacceptable. I have not lumped 2560x1600 vs. 2560x1440 into the discussion because the former does not seem to have become less popular as a result of the latter; hopefully, this does not change.

Finally, I really hope we stop trying to defend 16:9 in the name of multimedia. PCs are productivity devices first and foremost, so please do not take away more rows in Excel and tell me that this is a good thing because now I can watch movies without black bars. I can live with black bars, or I can walk 10 steps and use my (gasp!) TV. On the other hand, I can only zoom out of Excel so much before I lose my eyesight (and before some wise-ass tells me to just buy a new monitor/laptop, try telling your corporate IT department that you want special treatment because you lost 8 rows in Excel-- and no, BYOM is not an option in most workplaces).


RE: 3 million pixels
By MrTeal on 12/12/2011 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
Well yeah, 1080p panels are a dime a dozen. That's the problem, getting 2 or 3 24" 16:9 panels across a desk requires a huge amount of real estate. Often for doing real work on a computer (productivity, coding, etc) having more vertical pixels is more helpful than having more horizontal pixels. 16:9 panels also don't work nearly as well when rotated to portrait, so even that becomes difficult.

That's my main point I guess. They can likely sell an iPad3 for $500 with a 10" 2048x1536 IPS screen. If you shop around you can find 22" 1080p IPS monitors for $200 to $250 (the one you linked is TN, btw). There should be no reason that it's not possible to make a reasonably priced 4:3 monitor with an IPS panel and decent resolution, other than the fact that the panel makers decided to standardize on widescreen TV resolutions. I use two 19" 1280x1024 monitors at work because they actually give me more height than a 24" 1080p panel. 5:4 is an awesome aspect ratio, and I'd love to upgrade to a larger display and higher resolution without needing so much horizontal desk space.


RE: 3 million pixels
By Wolfpup on 1/4/2012 5:44:05 PM , Rating: 2
I've bought two Dells years ago that were under $200, TN (but really good TN) and...well, really high quality.


"The whole principle [of censorship] is wrong. It's like demanding that grown men live on skim milk because the baby can't have steak." -- Robert Heinlein














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki