“Apple was originally set to launch its iPad 3 in the second half of 2011 with a supply volume of 1.5-2 million units in the third quarter and 5-6 million in the fourth quarter, but Apple’s supply chain partners have recently discovered that the related figures have all already been deleted,” Yenting Chen and Joseph Tsai report for DigiTimes, citing “sources from the upstream supply chain.”
T”he sources believe that the yield rate of the 9.7-inch panel that feature resolution of 2,048 by 1,536 may be the major reason of the supply delay since such panels are mainly supplied by Japan-based Sharp with a high price and Apple’s other supply partners Samsung Electronics and LG Display are both unable to reach a good yield,” Chen and Tsai report. “Since Apple is unable to control a certain level of supply volume, the iPad 3 is unlikely to be mass produced as scheduled, the sources added.”
Advertisement: Limited Time: Students, Parents and Faculty save up to $200 on a new Mac.
Chen and Tsai report, “Supply of the iPad 2 in the second half will still be maintained at 28-30 million units.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Lynn Weiler” for the heads up.]
DigiTimes is full of BS, as usual. There probably never was a retina display iPad for 2011.
Rumor: Rumored iPad 3 cancelled over rumored yield issues with rumored retina display.
That nails it. There are precisely three types of sources for this Internet crap:
1. Industry press events and releases.
2. The bloggers themselves, the strength of whose information is summed up with “I think.”
3. Unnamed, unverifiable, untrustworthy “sources”.
Oh, that would be so sad!
So, the unrealistic rumor is debunked by an even more unrealistic rumor to try and cover the fact that the original rumor was a load of crap.
This is standard issue.
Usually sites like macrumors would claim that the product was “staved” and the change was because steve was mercurial. This is why I have so little respect for sites like that.
Steve’s not mercurial. Apple doesn’t change plans radically. You just put out bs rumors and then have to cover your ass.
We’re not as stupid as you think we are.
Apple is known for it’s efficiency and marketing savvy.
Why on earth would there be a second new iPad model in the same year as the iPad 2, a Revolutionary product that has the entire market to itself because there ain’t no one that can even come close to competition???
Manufactured rumors.
To put the “competition” even further behind? It’s possible. If one improves, innovates, and becomes more efficient faster than the competition, then instead of being 6 months behind, they’re forever behind.
“It’s possible”, but with Apple’s strength and dominance with all it’s hit products, iOS 5, iCloud and a forthcoming Chinese agreement, not to mention a pipeline of new products, it’s playing a great card prematurely, which would be a wasted move and reveal the next generation advance prematurely…
Rumor
Micro$oft postponed it’s big Ars table cause no one will make the special optic nerve display to their cheap standards.
What BS… You can’t “cancel” something that was never even real. There never was a iPad-sized Retina Display.
MY prediction(s). One or the other…
(1) The current display will continue for one more generation, and THEN, the big change will be a second screen size for iPad. Who doesn’t believe that iPad will NOT eventually come in more than one size? iPad will be available in 12-inch and 8-inch sizes. The 8-inch model will have the current 1024×768 resolution (and have half the weight of current iPad), and the 12-inch model will be 1600×1200. Both are about 160 pixels per inch, which happens to be the PPI number of the original iPhone screen.
OR
(2) About two years from now, iOS and Mac OS will evolve to the next level and attain full resolution independence. Currently, iOS and Mac OS X are both dependent on pixel size for many of its GUI elements, which is a significant limitation. When resolution independence arrives, the user will be able to smoothly (not incrementally) adjust how large (or small) things appear on the screen (much like we can currently adjust the size of the Dock in Mac OS X); “native” screen resolution becomes irrelevant. But pixels need to be VERY small. iPhone (and iPod touch) are already there with current Retina Display. iPad needs a higher resolution display, but it does not need to be exactly double the current display (that would be too expensive). It just needs to be high enough… and because of full resolution independence, there are no “fragmentation” concerns no matter what resolution (or screen size) is deemed the ideal balance between component cost and pixel density.
There’ll be fragmentation as soon as true rez-independence is introduced–between current iPad apps and those released/updated later.
Apple should have forced true RI when they released the iPad, now there are thousands of apps that have multiple bitmap images for different iOS screen sizes.
No, because devices that do not support resolution independence will run in a mode that has a fixed resolution, until those old models are no longer supported in the latest release of iOS. It would be like iPhone 3G running iOS 4, but not supporting multi-tasking.
Old apps on the new devices will be scaled (by iOS) to run at the full screen size and resolution. Or the user can smoothly adjust them to appear on screen at any size. It would be somewhat similar to how iPhone apps run on iPad today, except much more flexible.
New releases of apps will initially have two modes of operation, one (with fixed resolution) for older devices and one for the new devices that takes full advantage of resolution independence. It would be similar to some current apps having two modes, one for iPad and one for iPhone (and iPod touch), or current iPhone apps that run differently based on whether the iPhone has a Retina Display or not.
So no actual “fragmentation,” because iOS will account for limitations of older apps and older devices (until those older apps and devices are no longer supported in the latest release).
What?!?! No iPad 3 in “2011- THE YEAR OF IPAD 2”?
Pleez.
Say it ain’t so.
Agreed. Those are the words of Steve himself. Why can’t people get it through their heads that there will be no iPad 3 in 2011?
In the rumor world Apple has announced iPad 3 and cancelled it’s launch. Pretty amazing! And yes, laughable.
Everyone is missing the point regarding the absurdity of the article. Apple is canceling a potential 6.5 to 8 million production run of iPad 3, but will continue a 28-30 million unit production run of iPad 2. How silly. Oh, yeah, that’s right Apple was probably going to sell both units, because that’s their history. These are truly the fantasy thoughts of people who know a better way to run Apple’s business than the people running it now. Thank God for this invaluable creative input. By the way, don’t forget that the iPad 3 will finally come with thunderbolt, run a i7 processor with 256 gigs of memory and finally be able to stop menses from across the room. I can just see the Ad Line “iPad-3: Crystal clear, really fast, so hot! You thought we were kidding with the name!!”
You can’t cancel something that was never scheduled.
There was never going to an iPad 3 in 2011 because the iPad3 was always going to have an A6 processor and those won’t be available in quantity until 2012.