What the iPad 3 Looks Like

redletterdave writes "If you were expecting a radically different-looking tablet from the iPad 2, prepare for a minor letdown. In the same way Apple upgraded the iPhone 4 into the iPhone 4S, the exterior of the iPad 3 mirrors that of the iPad 2, despite completely renovated and upgraded innards. iLab Factory reportedly provided Sharp with the necessary parts to build the high-resolution iPad 3 display, and in a company blog post, various iPad 3 components are displayed alongside those of the iPad 2 for quick comparison. In addition to a new camera mount that will reportedly match or improve upon the 8-megapixel camera system in the iPhone 4S, the post also revealed that the iPad 3 will be approximately 1 mm thicker than its predecessor to house Apple's upgraded components, including a bigger battery, an improved camera, and a dual-LED lit system to make the 2048 x 1536 display even brighter."

Comments

Re:Cheaper iPad 2

[Overly Critical Guy]

...did you even read my post?

Re:Why would they change the design?

[Colonel Korn]

It works. People like it. Redesigns are expensive.

Maybe they'd change it to avoid getting sued by Samsung for copying the Samsung Digital Photo Frame design: http://www.letsgodigital.org/images/artikelen/47/samsung_digital_photo_frame.gif

Re:Cheaper iPad 2

[samkass]

The fundamental difference, as I see it, is that a 5 year old PC still works perfectly fine and can run most modern programs now-a-days just fine (so long as you've taken decent care of keeping crud off it). Good luck doing the same thing with the iPad: assuming it still even works 5 years from now, the battery life will have decayed to the point where it will be barely usable, and if you think you will have the newest version of the OS available on it, excuse me while I laugh my ass of at your naiveté.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Most 5-year-old PCs won't run Windows 7 very well, if at all, and have no chance at Windows 8. Most iOS software doesn't require the very latest version of iOS to run, so it should remain a very useful device. Heck, iPod Touch 1st generation and original iPhones can only run up to iOS 3.x and still sell pretty well on eBay. They are almost 5 years old.

As for battery, just get it replaced for $99 if you still value your device, but I think "barely usable" is an exaggeration. Again, original iPhones are almost that old and retain over 50% of their battery life. A 5 year-old iPad isn't going to be a use-all-day-without-recharging thing, but it will still be a very usable device.

I didn't read TFA, but...

[Intropy]

I'm guessing the iPad 3 looks kind of like a rectangle with rounded corners and a screen on one face?

Re:I didn't read TFA, but...

[pipedwho]

The design claims may be laughable taken individually, but a design patent is explicitly there to protect the totality of the claimed design elements taken as a whole. You can reduce any design to a subset of laughable 'things that came before', just as you can a work of literature. The theory is that infringement takes place when someone comes too close to the design when taken as a whole.

In the case of the iPad/Galaxy, this includes many things that are part of the software interface - in addition, and not necessarily separate, to the industrial design of the physical product.

I'm absolutely not a fan of vague 'look and feel' copyrights, vaguely 'derivative work' copyright decisions, or broad sweeping patents. And I'm not even sure I agree with any level of copyright or patent protection. For a sane system to work at all, patents, copyrights and trademarks should be protected as a whole work, and not just an umbrella covering every subordinate aspect of the work. They should also only cover whole works (or 95%+ of a whole) that could never have been created coincidentally. Anything less stifles innovation as people are too scared to create something that might vaguely infringe some aspect of a pre-existing patent/copyright, or get financially crushed trying to fight a legal challenge that has but a scintilla of validity - as happens now in many fields.

Trademarks and brand protection is necessary, but should be clearly limited to properly specified logos and names. Again, taken as a whole and not just a sub-element such as the 'font', 'colour', 'shape', etc.

It is obvious that the Galaxy is attempting to copy many aspects of the iPad, the question is whether or not they've gone too far as defined by current legal doctrine (whether or not we agree with it). IMO, the Samsung product is different enough to be clearly distinguished. But, my wife still calls my brother's Galaxy Tab an iPad. This is where the courts step in - as a whole, does it, or does it not infringe on the enumerated claims of Apple's design patent.

This is a fight that could never take place if not for the silliness that is the current state of 'IP' law (in many countries and not just the USA).

Re:2048 x 1536?!

[poity]

YES PLEASE! Finally high res screens on consumer electronics! I hope the rumor that Apple's computers will get updated with high res screens is also true. Laptop manufacturers need a kick in the butt to get them out of the 1366x768 doldrums.

Fail, nothing like an iPad

[SuperKendall]

That device (and I notice you had to look VERY hard pre-iPad to find something even sort of close) doesn't even have SYMMETRIC borders! They vary from 1-2".

Also it had all kinds of features along the front plate like speaker grills. Basically you were a mile away from anything like the iPad we have now.

Re:Cheaper iPad 2

[Anonymous Coward]

First off, I am most assuredly not an Apple shill. I work for a company called DiSTI (www.disti.com). I would be happy if anyone at Apple even knew who the hell we are and what we do, let alone actually PAY me to post on slashdot.

But let me rebut your answer to the question: "Are they [tablets] more useful than a desktop or laptop?"

They most assuredly ARE more useful in a very large number of specific niche markets. Sure for _generic everyday use_ a laptop is better, but when your purpose is to make someone more productive at a specific job, then tablets can be not only better, they are also often much cheaper and more capable.

For instance, laptop computers have been around for a decade and yet not one has been approved for use by pilots in the cockpit as a job performance aid. You've doubtless seen the numerous stories about pilots using tablets as Electronic Flight Bags, replacing pounds of paper? And for $500. And it weighs hardly anything. And it has a 10 hour battery life, enough to have it on the entire time while crossing the Atlantic, though they usually only use them before takeoff and their approach for landing.

There are numerous other niche markets where the iPad is a totally disruptive technology. In the military training field, soldiers are now carrying training with them on an iPad instead of going to a dedicated training center.

I will also personally rebut "Are they as easy to read on as a dedicated e-reader?". I have friends who have Kindles, Nooks, etc. I have an iPad2 and a GalaxyTab 10.1 (my company's products support both). I've read dozens of books on my iPad and see no reason whatsoever to spend extra money or add extra weight to my bag for a dedicated reading appliance.

Re:Far more likely to be 1.5x not 2x

[shutdown -p now]

No, you're talking about bitmap scaling which is not what is happening. When you create an iPhone 4 app you provide separate graphics at the new resolution. The same would be done here. UI elements are also native images for the resolution.

When you create a new app, or update one, sure. But it won't happen overnight; in the meantime, existing apps should be usable. iPhone 4 can still run apps created for iPhone 3 and below. And the reason why it can do that without them looking like crap is because it scales them up using an integer factor.

Re:Why would it be radically different?

[MobileTatsu-NJG]

I have both an iPad and a Galaxy Tab. I also have an HP Touchpad. I have on a couple of occasions grabbed the Tab thinking I was going for the iPad, and vice-versa. They actually are strikingly similar. I have never mistaken the Touchpad for either of the other two.

You can look at jpegs of the devices in question until you're blue in the face, but when you actually have your hands on them it's embarrassingly clear that Samsung copied the iPad down to tiny little details. That's why the 'rounded corners' bit of the case is only one of twenty five details Apple took issue with.