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 omnicronx on 12/12/2011 2:28:22 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's so sad that the new iPad looks like it's going to have a 2048x1536 display (plus battery, processor, etc, etc) for $500, but even finding a 1920x1200 monitor for $400 is tough, to say nothing of higher resolutions.
Its not sad, its just flat not feasible and in many cases, does not make sense.

First of all, there is a reason why Apple waited to make a 'Retina' display for the iPad, the yields are far too low, and will probably begin with less than 50% at the beginning of production. (i.e for each panel made, one will be garbage) Yield rates for larger screens are probably not even close to production quality levels.

Second, these are 11" displays, it will take sometime to make screens larger sizes cost effective. We are just not there yet, though production of smaller screens like those on the iPad will help push it to other consumer products if certain conditions are met.

Third (one of the conditions that must be met); No mainstream desktop OS truly supports resolution independence (Windows does not, and OSX has limited support). That means for the most part that as you increase the resolution on Windows/OSX, items and text will get smaller. This is a huge concern as readability becomes a problem, especially on smaller high resolution screens. iOS on the otherhand does support some form of resolution independence, i.e even when they bring the iPad 3 with double the resolution, everything on screen will remain the same size.
quote:
16:9 is a horrible aspect ratio for those of us who work on a computer all day using multiple monitors.
I disagree, and this comes from someone using dual 24" monitors all day. From a space perspective on smaller screens, 4:3 can make sense. From a 'how your eyes work perspective' on larger screens, widescreen makes far more sense.

Either way, there is clearly personal preference involved, but to make a blanket statement saying they are horrible for these kind of uses is nothing but your personal preference..


RE: 3 million pixels
By MrTeal on 12/12/2011 4:59:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not sure I agree with your points on the costs involved with the displays, but I'll admit I don't know enough about the LCD manufacturing process to say for certain. Making a 24" high resolution panel does't require any higher PPI count than current displays. QXGA in a 24" monitor would still only be 107PPI, which is right in the range of most current displays. It's not like you need super small pixels, just more of them. 27" 2560x1440 displays are available and have a higher pixel density. The driving electronics would require an update over 1080p to deal with the higher resolutions, but silicon exists that drives the 2560x1440 panels so I don't see why that should be a showstopper. The similar PPI on a 24" QXGA monitor to existing monitors also means that the lack of good resolution independence isn't a big issue.

I agree my assertion that 4:3 > 16:9 is personal preference, but then any of these things are. I think 16:9 is fine for many home users with a single monitor, but the generally in a multi-monitor setup you're often limited more by horizontal room than vertical. Since many things are formatted to be similar to 8.5x11, something like a page a a PDF is usually higher than it is wide. Full screen you either end up with bars on the side or so zoomed in that the text is needlessly large. You can always run two PDFs side by side windowed on a 16:9 to get a better utilization, but that's not an ideal solution in my mind. Win7 is nice with its ability to drag a document to the edge of a screen and dock it to half width, but it doesn't let you dock to the middle between monitors.

IMO, the only real benefit of 16:9 over 4:3 is in playing movies and TV shows. You can do things like move your start menu to the side of the screen, but with many programs you're often still stuck with large menus at the top of the window that can't be moved.


RE: 3 million pixels
By 3DoubleD on 12/13/2011 4:51:25 AM , Rating: 2
FYI, you can dock a window on the middle screen edges by using "windows key" + left/right arrows. Now, on a dual screen setup, you can dock 4 half screen windows!

I agree, though 4:3 FTW. I have a malfunctioning 20" 4:3 LCD that I've had in the corner of my office for months. I refuse to throw it away because I keep hoping I'll have the time (and luck) to fix it. Such a rare and valuable commodity.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














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