It wouldn't surprise me, but the data plans out there are still very expensive and wifi is becoming ubiquitous anywhere I would use one.

I'm looking forward to an iPad with cameras and GPS. Beyond those two features, nothing is going to get me all that excited. I don't think the next version of the iPad will be revolutionary, just evolutionary... which isn't a bad thing. The first version of the iPad is absolutely solid.

It only stands to reason that if a Verizon iPhone is coming, perhaps a Verizon iPad is also.

Considering Apple preferes to have ONE model of phone (plus the old model), it could likely be CDMA and GSM compatible. So will the iPad.

Can't say I'd be surprised with the addition of a CDMA-capable iPad -- it only makes good business sense.

I am a little surprised that Apple sells so many 3G models (60-65%). Other than those using the iPad as a business tool, it really doesn't make much financial sense to incur yet another monthly data bill.

Also expect to see highly subsidized iPads in 2011 from both AT&T and Verizon (and maybe others carriers as well). Again, I personally don't think subsidized hardware with expensive monthly contracts are the way to go, but most of America seems to disagree. I guess it's the fantasy of "getting something for free".

While I'm on the subject of the iPad, I'll throw out my wish list for version 2.0:

front-facing camera for FaceTime
faster A? processor
increased SSD (Flash) storage
thinner and lighter while retaining or increasing battery life
Qualcomm GSM/CDMA chipset that allows the iPad to work on any wireless carrier (and expect to see some highly subsidized offers before long as well)

Less likely but highly desired:
Retina display
SD card slot

And my #1 feature request:
SUPPORT FOR MULTIPLE USERS! Currently, the iPad syncs one users Mail, iCal, iPhoto, iTunes and Safari bookmarks which doesnt work very well for a shared family device. Sure, other family members can access most of THEIR content through the internet such as webmail, but it is not an ideal solution. The current configuration also doesn't allow for much privacy or parental controls. If the device is unlocked for a child to play games on, he/she can accidentally delete emails, etc. I don't believe Apple would lose sales as some claim by supporting multiple users. Quite the opposite; I would rather have several iPads in various rooms of the house that any family member can log into than have user-specific iPads that family members always had to keep track of. A iPhone is a personal device. An iPad SHOULD BE a SHARED device.

This is not possible with the size constraints and power efficiency required for the iPhone 4 at least looking at all the world mode chips I do know about which, ironically, cover less bands than the current iPhone.


Looking at the iPads internals this would be possible in that space, however there are cost and power usage issues to consider, not to mention how the space changes if Apple changes the iPads design.

Theyd have to weigh all these factors against the number of people who would switch their devices between carriers to see if it warrants all those hits against their next device. Since the iPad is the only item with cellular radios theyve chosen to not lock to any carrier its really the only one who has a chance, but I wouldnt bet money on it.

I don't care so much about the cameras and GPS, but I would like it to be faster (I'd like PDF rendering to be instantaneous) and I like the rumors of a flat back (the rounded back was an odd choice).

Thoughtful posting. I would like to see all wireless devices usable on any wireless provider as long as they are subscribed.

It could well be that Apple will offer the current iPad in WIFI form only at a reduced price as an entry-level option. Let's say instead of the current US price of $499, bring it in at $399.

Then bring out a lighter second-gen iPad that comes with UMTS and/or CDMA standard. GIve it 32G of RAM, a faster processor, cameras, better battery life, and have it come in at maybe $549. Offer another version or two with more RAM.

As for the question of switching to OLED, there is no reason to do so at this time. LED works just fine and is substantially cheaper. Supply constraints are beside the point.

Apple does the above and they'll continue to dominate the tablet market. What other company is in a position to offer a 10" tablet for $399 US or any product able to keep up with the second-gen iPad as it is likely to be configured. And what other company can offer such a rational, integrated device that is so easy to use and acquire software for.

Apple's advantage, mainly, is that while other manufacturers are just starting to work with the touchscreen tablet format, Apple has been building a device along those lines for several years in the form of the Touch. That's why the first-gen iPad is such a capable well-thought-out device.

On Amazon the stats typically show the cheapest model (16GB WiFi) as the best seller with the most expensive (64GB WiFi+3G) model as the second best seller.

Note that you dont have to incur any additional bills to use the 3G model. I have it just in case I need internet and thats the only option. It also affords me the use of the GPS and what I assume is better resell value. Least of all, possibly slightly better WiFi since the top portion is a plastic.


They may make deals with Apple on this, but the fact that Apple didnt lock or subsidize the original iPad makes me wonder if they simply didnt want this to be another device with contracted data plan.



? Front-facing camera. Apples pushing FaceTime hard, at least a FF camera seems inevitable.
? Faster and/or more efficient CPU
? Im not so sure they will go with 128GB. Has NAND production come to a point that its feasible to make the jump again at the same price point? Since they use more than a single NAND chip, Apple could use 3x32GB to offer 96GB in the high-end iPad, but its not like anyone else is matching them well on price, size, and capacity and I doubt CES will change that.
? Note this technically feasible with the current iPads space but requires a lot more work that any world mode phone Ive ever seen. Typically, these phones have the four GSM 2G bands, the CDMA bands for that countrys carrier its locked to, and the UMTS 3G bands that covers most of Europe. Apple has five UMTS bands in the iPhone 4. Four of these are actively used around the world, yet they still dont cover NTT DoCoMo, Japans largest carrier, or T-Mobile USA, the US smallest major MNO. For Apple to add CDMA bands I theyd have to add a lot more bands than any world mode device on the market has ever had. All that comes with a cost and simply may not be worth it, even thought it would likely be technically feasible in the current iPad.


? You didnt define what you mean by Retina Display, but assuming all the rational definitions its not going to happen.
? I can see an SD card slot happening before a USB interface port, but this also seems very unlikely with the way Apple operates.


That would be a nice feature but Id wait for the iOS 5.0 rumours to begin before starting on SW updates.

Can someone please explain to me why these reports keep coming out saying that the initial order or "first run" will be for 500,000 to 700,000 units? Apple will sell those in about 5 days.

If the iPad 2 is to replace the iPad 1 then wouldn't they need a hell of a lot more than that? Maybe iPad 1 will drop by $150 and new models with cameras, etc will come in at a higher price?

If the new model has distinct hardware ( faster processor or camera(s) ) I can see them keeping the old model with significant price cuts.