Report: iPad 3 to Launch Within Months
December 12, 2011 10:01 AM
comment(s) - last by
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
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,"
The rumors are bolstered by further reports from a Chinese
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
, cited February as the target launch date, so the new timeframe isn't too far off.
According to the
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
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.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
RE: 3 million pixels
12/12/2011 2:02:13 PM
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
12/12/2011 4:49:57 PM
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
12/13/2011 12:28:54 AM
Aspect decisions are not based on "how many pixels can we get?" It's based on human field of vision. At some point, the detail captured by a lens will be so immense that "losing" imperceptible details in order to fill our field of vision makes more sense.
And again, a 16:9 image doesn't necessarily have less vertical space than a 16:10 image. There's aspect, and then there's resolution. You seem to be unable to grasp this. I can create a 2160p 16:9 panel with 90% more space vertically than any 1200p 16:10 panel.
Why does movie editing have to be done in fullscreen? What do you lose by having the image scaled back on 16:9 enough so that the editing controls don't occlude the image?
The situation that I give is far more damning a problem. A 16:10 image is either going to get cut off on a 16:9 display or slightly downsampled into a blurry mess with two black bars on the sides. We need the 16:9 aspect on the PC to avoid anything derived from the PC from looking like ass on a larger display. Legacy manufacturing techniques based on 4:3 aspects enabled cutting widescreen panels to 1200p sizes, but manufacturers should have thrown away the excess precisely due to the fact that tiny deviances in resolution create big compatibility problems.
RE: 3 million pixels
12/14/2011 12:45:49 PM
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).
"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Editorial: Why Windows 8 Tablets Will Beat the Odds, be a Winner
December 1, 2011, 8:05 PM
Report: Android Tablets to “Overwhelm” iPads in 2014
November 4, 2011, 9:19 AM
Apple Looks to Kill Samsung's Android Tablets and Phones in Britain
September 14, 2011, 4:10 PM
BlackBerry’s Latest "Plug" for its Passport Smartphone: Displaying Sharp X-rays for Doctors
August 21, 2014, 4:49 PM
Sprint Introduces $60 Unlimited Plan, Touts $20/Month Costs Savings Versus T-Mobile
August 21, 2014, 2:05 PM
Opera Becomes Official Browser of Microsoft-Nokia's Non-Windows Phones
August 21, 2014, 1:01 PM
Microsoft Tests Free 24-Hour Xbox One Game Trials
August 21, 2014, 11:41 AM
New Photos Show “Assembled” iPhone 6, Protruding Camera Ring
August 20, 2014, 2:32 PM
ZTE Nubia 5S mini LTE 4.7" Smartphone Headed to U.S. for $280 Unlocked
August 20, 2014, 10:37 AM
Most Popular Articles
Lumia 830 Gets Major Upgrades Including New 20.1 Megapixel Toshiba Sensor
August 15, 2014, 6:00 PM
Windows Phone, BlackBerry Smartphone Market Share Falls to 2.5%, 0.5% Respectively
August 15, 2014, 9:44 AM
GM Concedes That the Cadillac ELR Doesn’t Really Compete with the Tesla Model S
August 15, 2014, 5:42 PM
Report: Windows 9 “Threshold” Tech Preview Coming Next Month
August 15, 2014, 11:29 AM
Apple Scores Patents, Preps New Reversible USB Plug for iPhone 6 Connector
August 18, 2014, 1:32 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Space Terrorism is a Looming Threat For the United States
Apr 23, 2014, 7:47 PM
Facebook Aims to Provide Internet to "Every Person in the World" with Drones, Satellites
Apr 1, 2014, 10:20 AM
Retail Mobile Sites Experience Outages in Light of Simplexity's Bankruptcy
Mar 14, 2014, 8:48 AM
Tesla vs. BMW: Who Has the Safer EV?
Feb 1, 2014, 2:56 PM
Justice Leaks Details of Next HTC One Two Flagship Phone
Dec 5, 2013, 4:04 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information