[Robo]

Originally Posted by torifile It's going to be my birthday present, so I'm going to be lined up day 1. Well, maybe if it doesn't have LTE. If it does, forget about it. As far as battery life is concerned, if the rumors about its slight increase in thickness is to be believed, I'm thinking that should compensate.

Just curious: is there a reason you wouldn't want LTE, other than potentially poor battery life? The way you worded this confuses me.

(Oh, and happy birthday! )

Originally Posted by torifile Oh, and it better have more than 256 megs of RAM or whatever the iPad 1/2 have. I hate the browser tabs reloading all the damned time....

The iPad 1 has 256MB and the iPad 2 has 512MB, IIRC. But I agree, moar RAM would always be swell.

[torifile]

There's no reason at all I wouldn't want LTE. I had a Galaxy Nexus for about a month and the only really good thing about it was the LTE. HOLY SHIT. 20 megs down/15 up was the norm. I'd even take a few hours off the battery life for it.

Whatever RAM the previous iPads had - it wasn't enough. I haven't used an iPad 2 extensively but on my iPad 1, it continues to be my *only* annoyance. Otherwise it's a great, nearly perfect, device.

[jdcfsu]

Wife and I are finally getting iPads when they are announced. All the rumored specs sound great, though I could care less about LTE. Wifi only for us, please.

[drewprops]

I had lunch with a friend who ran Speedtest on his LTE Android phone and the speed was incredible. Absolutely incredible.

...

[chucker]

I guess I don't see a rush to move to LTE. Perhaps speeds, by and large, are worse in the US than I'm seeing here. With my iPhone 4S on the tram, I frequently get 7 Mb/sec, with pings around 90 ms (it's different in smaller towns, of course), which is arguably roughly the point of diminishing returns — a better ping would be nice*, but I can't imagine much stuff I'd do on a phone where faster data rates would help. Even a FaceTime stream should comfortably work at this rate, surely?

*) And that's where I see the real long-term gain in LTE: it's finally completely packet-based, not wrapped packets on top of a non-IP-style system. So, latency will improve significantly.

[Eugene]

AT&T in SF is generally under 2mbps during the day, so yes it's terrible. Assuming quick LTE adoption, I imagine its speeds will be pedestrian compared to what people are getting right now.

[turtle]

For a bit of 3G awesomeness from Va Beach, I just ran it and got 94ms ping. 1.49Mbps down and .43Mbps up. Yeah, 3G sucks here.

[psmith2.0]

I've always been curious what folks do over their cellular data network that I do differently?

When I'm out and about, I'm typically not in a position to stream or download large media files or whatever. I don't even want to. While at home or anywhere else with WiFi, I'll get a movie, download podcasts or music, update apps, etc. But I'm not interested in renting a movie on my phone and trying to watch it while driving.



I know stuff like Pandora(?) is big, but I don't use it. I'm just not that big into music (on-demand, "I gotta hear this song/artist/genre NOW!!!"), and I keep a shifting/rotating playlist of around 150 or so songs on my iPhone so I've always got favorite songs or artists to listen to, onboard.

When I'm out and about, away from WiFi, I typically just check e-mail, light surf, maybe hit Google Maps or Fandango, etc. It's the reason why, on a 200MB data plan, I never really go above 50MB or so a month. I've just never really imagined trying to do "big stuff" via 3G or whatever.

But are more people doing large, intensive streaming and downloads via 3G (or 4G) than I realize?

It's just never been an issue for me, I guess. Out of all the features of any upcoming iPhone or iPad, the cellular data speeds have always been a non-issue and something I've never cared, or thought, about. Having an iPhone, I'd never get anything other than a WiFi-only iPad. AT&T is getting enough from me, thank you.



Am I alone? I know we all use our phones differently, which is why I was curious and asked...

[PB PM]

I'm going for the WIFI only iPad as well. I don't have a data plan for my iPhone, so why get one for the iPad?

[Maciej]

I'm going for the data-enabled iPad mostly to have the ability to enable data for trips. I doubt I'll keep a data plan day-to-day. But I might buy data for a month once in a while.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM I'm going for the WIFI only iPad as well. I don't have a data plan for my iPhone, so why get one for the iPad?

Dude… iPhone without a data plan is only a fifth the fun!

[Eugene]

Things I can't always do on my iPhone 4s...

* Browse the web with any sort of responsiveness due to network congestion.

* Watch videos from MLB@TheBat and other apps.

* Upload a quick YouTube video that I just recorded.

* Download new apps songs from iTunes.

* Siri.

[PB PM]

Originally Posted by chucker Dude… iPhone without a data plan is only a fifth the fun!

Meh, don't need it, there is WIFI almost everywhere I need data. It also saves me $25 a month, data plans in Canada suck.

[chucker]

Originally Posted by PB PM Meh, don't need it, there is WIFI almost everywhere I need data. It also saves me $25 a month, data plans in Canada suck.

Fair enough. I'm on public transit quite a bit, so 3G is a great way to bridge the gap.

[torifile]

Slow internet is one of my biggest day to day pet peeves. Trying to watch YouTube on my home internet (the "high" tier on TWC) is painful at best. Literally, I will wait the length of the video before it'll start playing. Don't ask me why but that's just how it is. I think TWC throttles YouTube and other video sites. I have no evidence of it, but I will pull down a torrent at 2 meg/s for 4 gigs but have trouble streaming some video.

On my iPad, streaming video is a more frequent activity than on my home computers. So, yeah, it'll be nice to have.

[Chinney]

I agree with 'Scates. I am curious what people need fast data for when mobile. I would have thought that 3G is more than fast enough for anything most people want to do when not on WIFI, but maybe people are using it differently from me.

As for data plans, I have a good one from Telus here in Canada which is $20 a month for 500 MB of data. For $35 I could get a Telus data plan for 5 GB a month, but given that I never come anywhere close to using my 500 MB - and I use it a lot - 5 GB would be major overkill.

I don't know. Maybe some people stream lots of mobile video. That would explain the need for more data and faster data. If you don't do that though, then there really is no need.

[Maciej]

In my experience 3G is fast enough for loading web pages, but dog slow when it comes to loading youtube (or other) videos. Slow when it comes to downloading music, too.

Speaking of data plans, I'm eager to see what kind of offers the providers will have for group data.

[Chinney]

Here are some things that I would like though for the iPad 3:

- better antennas (the problem for me is not inadequately fast connections when I get reception, but inadequate reception in spots where other devices get a decent signal)

- better battery life (current battery life is very good - I would like it to be absolutely fabulous; I want insane battery life actually: 20 hours or more; I know I won't get that, but I can dream)

- faster battery charging (frankly, though current battery life is good, the charging time is pretty long; could they improve on that while still giving me more battery life?)

- lighter weight (shave off a few more ounces, if possible)

- ability to use it as a hotspot without a jailbreak (although that is not a hardware issue - it just requires a change in software and policy on Apple's side and on the part of ISPs)

[Moogs]

Originally Posted by Maciej I'm going for the data-enabled iPad mostly to have the ability to enable data for trips. I doubt I'll keep a data plan day-to-day. But I might buy data for a month once in a while.

Wait, so you think we'll be able to buy the 4G enabled model without buying the actual data plan on the spot / can buy it a month at a time whenever traveling etc? I thought it had to be an always-on sort of thing, like a phone.

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by Moogs Wait, so you think we'll be able to buy the 4G enabled model without buying the actual data plan on the spot / can buy it a month at a time whenever traveling etc? I thought it had to be an always-on sort of thing, like a phone.

No, I don't think so. I always thought it was a no-contract plan, month to month. I thought that was the big selling point when the iPads first came out.

You might have to get one right at time of sale, but I think you can cancel it whenever.

Edit:

Originally Posted by store.apple.com Connects to the Internet over Wi-Fi and 3G networks. For 3G service from a wireless carrier, sign up for a simple, month-to-month plan right on your iPad, and cancel anytime without penalty.

That's what the Apple store claims for current gen iPad. I guess I don't see why it would change...

[psmith2.0]

Yeah, it's different for iPad. That was a nice way to implement it. I was surprised.

[turtle]

The 3G one (and guessing the LTE if it is) also gets the GPS where the WiFi only doesn't. That's one of my biggest reasons to get one with cell data this time.

[psmith2.0]

Is there a way the wifi models could have GPS, or does that actually require the 3G stuff? Just wondering what is technically possible, or might happen with the 3.

BTW, my dad and stepmom are going to Scotland for two weeks in May. All they're taking, gadget-wise, is his Nikon D90 and their wifi-only iPad (they just bought one of those Apple Camera Connector kits).

They also downloaded a UK street-level map app that doesn't require network access.

The iPad makes a nice travel companion. It's a shame the still camera on it isn't up to iPhone 4s standard...that could be the only thing you'd have to take with you. Camera, atlas, alarm clock, communicator, camcorder, photo/video storage (and uploader), reminder/notes/planner, etc.

As long as you didn't lose it...

[chucker]

Originally Posted by pscates2.0 Is there a way the wifi models could have GPS, or does that actually require the 3G stuff? Just wondering what is technically possible, or might happen with the 3.

You can do GPS without an assisting technology such as cell tower triangulation, but on a consumer device, you wouldn't want to. GPS receives information from satellites in 30-second cycles, and takes up to 25 cycles (in the worst case) — or 12.5 minutes! — to be fully initialized. It's purely a downlink* connection, so there's no way of telling the satellites "hurry up! I need the info now!". That's why A-GPS (i.e., combining, say, cell tower triangulation with GPS) is common; it significantly speeds up initial pinpointing and then asks GPS for more detailed information.

But Apple does have a third technology that doesn't require 3G: Wi-Fi. It drains up a lot of power, but is typically enabled on an iPad anyway, and is somewhat fast and precise.

Thus, the fact that they aren't offering GPS on the non-3G model is likely economical, not technological. If I'm not mistaken, their GPS chips come bundled inside 3G chips, and they probably don't care to pick a separate GPS chip (nor, to offer you a 3G+GPS chip with the 3G part dormant).

IOW, it's probably an upsell. And it likely doesn't cost anywhere near $130. Or even $13.

*) Common misconception: there is no such thing as "telling the GPS satellites your coordinates through GPS" — it's one-way. Unless you also have a data connection of sorts, nobody else will know your position.

[Maciej]

MacRumors is reporting the new processor is the A5X, not A6.

Pure speculation, but possibly this lends a little more credence to the believe that it will remain dual core, just with an improved GPU?

[SpecMode]

I'd be pretty darned impressed with that improved GPU if it can drive 85% of the pixels that my MBP's Radeon 6750M is driving on my 27" iMac's display, getting decent performance without absolutely murdering battery life. Hell, until relatively recently, desktop GPUs could struggle with a resolution like 2048x1536.

Could you imagine the response if you were to tell someone as recently as five years ago that you would be able to buy a tablet computer with that kind of display, weighing less than two pounds, that has both good graphics performance and awesome battery life? They'd laugh in your face.

[Satchmo]

I don't recall Apple calling any of their products '3' other than the iPhone 3GS and perhaps the Macintosh LCIII
Perhaps...

iPad HD (with a higher screen resolution)
iPad Pro (with a faster processor)
iPad LTE (with LTE capabilities)

[Maciej]

Originally Posted by SpecMode I'd be pretty darned impressed with that improved GPU if it can drive 85% of the pixels that my MBP's Radeon 6750M is driving on my 27" iMac's display, getting decent performance without absolutely murdering battery life. Hell, until relatively recently, desktop GPUs could struggle with a resolution like 2048x1536.

I've been having similar thoughts, I won't characterize them as skepticism, but I'll say that it will certainly be impressive if the thing runs smoothly. On the other hand, when has Apple released a half-baked product?

[Bonn89]

Originally Posted by Satchmo I don't recall Apple calling any of their products '3' other than the iPhone 3GS and perhaps the Macintosh LCIII

They never named a product with a '4', either.

(I was going to say 'with a 2', but then I remembered the (duh) Apple II)

[Eugene]

Originally Posted by Bonn89 They never named a product with a '4', either. (I was going to say 'with a 2', but then I remembered the (duh) Apple II)

Many Apple products have had the Roman numerals "II." These include numerous Mac models (II/IIx/IIsi/IIci/IIcx/IIfx/IIvi/IIvx ), LaserWriters, StyleWriters, keyboards, mice, floppy drives, monitors, etc.