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 Solandri on 12/12/2011 5:05:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Does anyone actually need 2048x1536 on a ~10" display?

Sheet music looks terrible at 1024x768. It's difficult to distinguish a 16th note from an 8th note, or sometimes even an 8th note from a quarter note.

The problem is (1) Apple standardized on 1024x768, which was pretty much the best they could do at a decent price point at the time, but is low enough to be annoying (aforementioned sheet music problem). And (2) iOS' seemingly complete lack of a scaling model, leading to apps which are hard-coded for 1024x768. This requires a complete doubling of resolution to properly scale apps.

Android has this same problem to a lesser extent (why some phone apps don't work on tablets). In an age where computers can rescale graphics for things like icons and fonts an arbitrary amount on the fly in nanoseconds, this simply should not be a problem. Developers should be crafting their apps to be resolution-independent. Not hard-coding them for a specific resolution. This is something Windows 7 actually does (mostly) right - letting you scale icon and font size an arbitrary amount. The UI scales right along with it.


"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini














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