Bloomberg: Apple iPad 3 with 4G LTE, Retina display, quad-core A6 to debut in March

“Apple Inc.’s next iPad, expected to go sale in March, will sport a high-definition screen, run a faster processor and work with next-generation wireless networks, according to three people familiar with the product,” Tim Culpan, Peter Burrows and Adam Satariano report for Bloomberg.

“The company’s manufacturing partners in Asia started ramping up production of the iPad 3 this month and plan to reach full volumes by February, said one of the people, who asked not to be named because the details aren’t public,” Culpan, Burrows and Satariano report. “The tablet will use a quad-core chip, an enhancement that lets users jump more quickly between applications, two of the people said.”

Culpan, Burrows and Satariano report, “Apple is bringing LTE to the iPad before the iPhone because the tablet has a bigger battery and can better support the power requirements of the newer technology, said one of the people… The new display is capable of greater resolution than the current iPad, with more pixels on its screen than some high-definition televisions, the person said. The pixels are small enough to make the images look like printed material, according to the person. Videos begin playing almost instantly because of the additional graphics processing, the person said… Mass production began at the start of this month, with factories running 24 hours a day in China, one of the people said.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Let’s all make a pact right now to live each day fully and not just mentally wish away the days until March!


      1. I read this site for information about Apple and technology. If I want steaming piles of ideological shit I will squeeze Rush Limbaugh’s head. Take your propaganda to a site that welcomes it.

    1. By definition, conservative is an attempt to keep things the same and by logical extension, no possible improvements in any aspects of life. My take on it is that the two thirds of the US that are conservative are what is holding back the country from a truly great future.

      Steve Jobs and Apple are not conservative and have moved the world past the tech doldrums of the past with new and innovative products. Let go of the past and embrace a brave new future with confidence and excitement.

      1. You use a very strange dictionary if that’s your definition of conservative.

        Conservative: Holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in politics or religion.

        Conservatives don’t reject change; they test it, and don’t embrace change for the sake of change.

        Both the attitude of progressive thought (“Let’s try this new thing and see how it works!”) and conservative thought (“Look before you leap!”) are necessary to a society that wants to improve with a reasonable margin of safety. I’m a conservative, but I reject the notion that liberal ideas are universally bad, just as I would expect a reasonable liberal to not reject all conservative ideas out of hand. (And to the unreasonable on both sides – grow up!)

        1. Righto, but fly in the ointment is the stakes a fellow holds, tends to color his thinking a shade or ten to the favorable side, you know, make exceptions, explain away things what don’t line up on his mantelpiece. Another tipoff would be the fellow labels himself. I see you’re scot-free of that trap yourself. I say, definitions be damned. The dictionary never shed no blood to save a country.

          1. By self-labeling I suppose you mean a username like “Voting GOP in 2012!” or “First 2010, Then 2012”. If they’re old enough to drive, they have an average of 4.5 bumper stickers, a vanity plate, and a decal showing Calvin irrigating their arch-enemy.

            Reminds me of a line from a Bob Dylan song:
            “The preacher looked so baffled when I asked him why he dressed
            with twenty pounds of headlines stapled to his chest”

    2. Debate statistics or definitions all you like but one thing I guarantee: if there had been no liberals in this country there would be no Apple. Not to mention a WHOLE lot less capital backing the startups that support iOS and OS X. Which also wouldn’t have many of the bright young and outside the box employees who make the same innovation possible.

      1. Point taken, Ed. More people should take notice of that essential point. Conservatives don’t create new capital. They conserve it. Come back again soon; we need your common sense here.

        1. Sorry, but you’ve missed the mark. What the two of you have articulated is the fallibility of stereotypes; not the inability of conservatives to take risk or innovate.

          Some of the greatest innovators in history have been conservative! A conservative who preserves his capital, is prepared to take a great risk when he/she feels the idea, time, and other factors are right.

          It takes a lot more than just conservative rich venture capitalists OR liberal creative thinkers to innovate and bring products to market.

          Stop stereotyping to fit your own pre-conceived notions.

          1. You’re absolutely right, of course. There does exist a persistent tendency to promote the isolated, context-independent idea in a public forum. These are as you suggest deeper waters, and deserve more careful articulation. The obvious and ever-present trap is the parry-and-thrust dynamic of blog interchanges that encourages a defensive posture. You’ve taken the time to remind us of this general communication problem, and it’s an important one. Thanks.

  1. If it’s released in March, I don’t see it having a quad-core “A6” processor. It might have a processor that gets a number bump from the current A5 for other reasons that significantly improve performance (such as better graphics processing), that does not involve having four cores.

    As for the display, the article itself never calls it “retina” (the MDN headline does). The article uses “high-definition.” That could mean something that is less than the wildly-optimistic 2048×1536 that many are predicting, but still “HD.” For example, 1600×1200 (or even 1280×960).

    1600×1200 at 9.7 inches is about 206 pixels per inch. The iPhone 4/4S display is 326 PPI. But, since most people probably hold their iPad at least 50% further way from eyes compared to iPhone, 206 PPI on iPad is about equivalent to 326 PPI on iPhone, in terms of perceived clarity.

    1. You are correct, 1280×960 (matches the current iPad 4:3 aspect ratio using square pixels) would support 720p HD (1280×720) with letterboxing. The unused area (top and/or bottom in landscape orientation) could be used for pop-up controls that would not overlay the video. The question remains, does Apple have a way of implementing this approach without Android-like product/software fragmentation? The ultimate solution would be resolution independence. Another option is brute force – play the current iPad apps in a subsection of the new iPad 3 display and push developers to design a new generation of apps specifically tailored for the iPad 3.

      Let me once more clarify my statement regarding a 2048×1536 iPad 3 display. If Apple wants to go HD – especially full 1080p (1920×1200) – then going to 2048×1536 and using pixel doubling for backwards compatibility with the current iPad apps is a potential alternative. Is that crazy and unlikely? Perhaps. Only Apple could pull that off this year (if anyone can). But you offered up 1600×1200 at 206ppi without hesitation, and that is nearly 2Mpixels. You also failed to address the resolution incompatibility with the current iPad apps.

      We will see. Either way, I will be happy to have the opportunity to buy an iPad 3.

      1. No chance for half-a** compromises. The screen will be either the same as now or 2048×1536.

        There is no way that Apple would agree to use intermediate resolution since it would make applications blurry.

        Apple declined to raise resolution in iPhone 3G or in iPhone 3Gs to any intermediate resolution for that reason.

        The picture has to be absolutely clear, perfect in both native resolution and all of older applications. So 2:1 scaling in both axis is the only choice.

      2. Here’s an example of why “pixel doubling” is NOT necessary. On a 27-inch iMac, the native resolution (and default setting) is 2560×1920. But set it at 1920×1080 in System Preferences Displays pane, and it still looks pretty good.

        In the past, not using the native resolution on an LCD caused noticeable fuzziness, because the pixels were larger. But on current Macs, the pixels are now small enough, so the result is quite acceptable. And that iMac’s display is “only” about 109 pixels per inch. Therefore, Mac OS X already has “resolution independence” is a very limited way (because pixels on built-in displays became smaller).

        Now, consider 1600×1200 at 9.7 inches, which is about 206 PPI (almost double that iMac example). As I said previously, that level is “retina” for an iPad. In the same way that the iMac scales 1920×1080 to fit the 27-inch screen, iOS can scale existing 1024×768 apps to fit 1600×1200. Since the user cannot distinguish individual pixels, it will look just as good as 1024×768 on a 1024×768 display. “Pixel doubling” is NOT necessary.

        Apple can selectively use 1600×1200 “HD mode,” when it matters. For example, icons on the home page can be in HD. Movies and photos can be displayed in HD. iBooks text can be rendered in HD. Developers can take advantage of HD mode in their apps, just has they updated apps to take advantage of iPhone’s Retina Display. Why is there a need for “pixel doubling”?

        Also, if 1600×1200 is already “retina” at 9.7 inches, what is the point of going up to 2048×1536? Is Apple designing iPad for eagles? There will be no perceived improvement in clarity by “pixel doubling.” It would just make iPad too expensive, and reduce graphics performance and battery life.

        1. If Apple thought that intermediate resolution looks “pretty good” then they would make iPhone 3G/3Gs having 720×480 resolution.

          However, Apple never wanted to have blurry (“pretty good”) picture for applications, so they waited when 960×640 resolution became available.

          1. Please read what I wrote. I used the iMac example to illustrate the method, not the result. With the iMac, it’s only 109 PPI, and it looks “pretty good.” 1600×1200 on a 9.7 inch is 206 PPI. That is equivalent to 326 PPI on an iPhone’s Retina Display, because an iPad is held further away from eyes.

            If the user cannot resolve an individual pixel at 206 PPI, an existing 1024×768 app scaled to 1600×1200 will be indistinguishable from that app running on the current iPad. The only thing that’s a bit “blurry” here is your comprehension… 🙂

            However, I will amend my previous comment… Not only is “pixel doubling” is NOT necessary, it is actually NOT desirable. It goes beyond what is needed to deliver the “retina” experience on an iPad (which will NOT improve image clarity), and serves only to greatly increase the component cost of iPad, hinder performance through pushing around unnecessary pixels, and reduce battery life (or increase battery size).

  2. Remember those vacations in the station wagon going to Disney World and the kids in the back seat saying, “Are we there yet? Are we there yet Are we there yet??”


    Is it March yet?… Is it March yet?… Is it March yet?… Is it March yet?… Is it March yet?… Is it March yet?… Is it March yet?…

  3. these (big) spec bumps are hardly news. everyone knows by now they’re coming. i think we all expect to see Siri coming to the iPad as well. what would be really new news?

    three other things would be great for users: shave a few more ounces off the weight, move up to new battery technology with significantly longer hours, and build in much better strero speakers.

    (i also wish Apple would tweak the location of the buttons, and put them all on the short side opposite the camera instead of on the long side like now. maybe that’s just me.)

  4. They missed all the good stuff, communications protocols 5G-S & TCP (5th Generation String & Tin Can Protocol), graphics enhancements-HAM (Holographic Auto Modeling), and security features-SADEM (Self Auto Defending Electrocute Mode,) and TCP & IP (Telephone Call to Police & Instant Positioning.) The security features were added to insure that NO iPhone ever fall into the wrong hands again. Any other features get missed?

  5. “Videos begin playing almost instantly because of the additional graphics processing, the person said.”

    Damn that thing can fly. Imagine what browsing the web is going to be like.

    Can’t fscking wait.

  6. ‘The pixels are small enough to make the images look like printed material, according to the person.’ WRONG!

    Most printed material has dots (like pixels) that are at least as large as those on the iPads 1 & 2. Should read:

    ‘The pixels are small enough to make the images look like continuous tone prints, according to the person.’ i.e.: like a photo print from a 35mm camera.

  7. “MacDailyNews Take: Let’s all make a pact right now to live each day fully and not just mentally wish away the days until March!”
    Gratitude for one of the best “Take”s yet. Thank You

  8. Baffles me how an article about IPad rumors can become a forum for far right vs. far left nattering. Let’s voncentrate on important things like the size of the home button on the IPad 3
    :/ )

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.