About a month ago, during a bout of boredom, I decided to engage in some impromptu Apple punditry on twitter. Just for shits and giggles, let’s see how far off the mark I was.
Predictions: iPad 3 will look exactly like the iPad 2, but with Retina display and A6 chip. 32GB entry model. 3G standard for all models.
Keeping the same form factor will be necessary to keep up with massive demand, as the factories won’t have to change their infrastructure.
A6 and Retina: A6 is a no-brainer, but retina is a guess, though logical. I doubt they’ll create a new category for that (iPad Pro)
I don’t see what point of such a resolution on that small a display would have for pros. So Retina becomes standard.
Same chassis: half check. The design is pretty much identical, but it’s slightly deeper1, probably because of an even larger battery to enable 4G without sacrificing uptime.
Retina: check! There were some rumors at the time that they might spin off the retina version iPad into a new Pro category, but I wasn’t buying any of it.
A6 chip: they branded it A5X, but they might as well have called it an A6. So check.
32GB entry-model: [some of – ed] those rich-media iBooks textbooks weigh in at 1GB+ a pop. 16GB just won’t cut it anymore.
32GB entry model: wrong. Looks like Apple is betting on streaming & cloud-storage all the way. Is local storage going the way of optical?
3G standard: wrong again!
Camera: don’t expect much changes there. Maybe 1080p video capture but that’s it.
1080p video: Check! The camera is still slightly less advanced than the one in the latest iPhone, but it seems they went beyond what I thought they would do.
So, final score: 3.5/6 – guess I shouldn’t quit my day job just yet. Still, at least I’m not stupid enough to bet against this being a huge success.
1. The new iPad is 9.4 mm deep, whereas the iPad 2 was 8.8 mm. The new one is even 51 g heavier – I’m guessing that’s all battery, but I think the retina display might also be responsible.