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 BansheeX on 12/13/2011 12:28:54 AM , Rating: 0
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
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).


"Can anyone tell me what MobileMe is supposed to do?... So why the f*** doesn't it do that?" -- Steve Jobs














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