No iPad 3 this year

No iPad 3 this year
We’ve been hearing rumors about the iPad 3 launching this Holiday season since before the iPad 2 launched, but that made little sense from the get-go - why would Apple break their successful yearly launch tradition and speed it up when no competition was even near the iPad? Well, JP Morgan’s recent report states once again that this is not going to happen - no iPad 3 this fall and the earliest it would arrive is 2012.

Common sense? Absolutely, but the analyst had some insider information as well saying that there are indeed prototypes in the supply chain and those are somehow related to the iPad 3. But that doesn’t mean the iPad 3 will get released any earlier than 2012.

Moskowitz’s predictions are coherent - previously the analyst said he expects Apple’s tablet to continue dominating by 2012 with share at that time reaching 62.8%. The first real threat - the analyst expects - will come when Windows 8 tablets arrive. 

Other analysts including IDC however predict a slightly different future for the iPad - one where Android plays catch-up relatively quickly and Amazon’s tablet competes as well, while Windows 8 is not necessarily that influential in the short term. In this parallel reality, the iPad would still reign supreme but with a humbler market share. It’s up to you to say which one would come true, but in either case it seems that Apple has no reason to rush the next-gen slate this Holiday season.

via PCMag

Image courtesy of The Economist.

Related phones

iPad 3
  • Display 9.7" 2048 x 1536 pixels
  • Camera 5 MP / 0.3 MP VGA front
  • Processor Apple A5X, Dual-core, 1000 MHz
  • Storage 64 GB
  • Battery 11560 mAh



1. bling bling unregistered

ipad 3 will not come this year but it will still sell like cakes when it comes out , major market of north america only , here ipad 1 does not sell very well even it is at very cheap prices comparing than android tabs which are costly

104. jogutier

Posts: 324; Member since: Feb 12, 2010

Pretty dumb pic DISLIKE!

2. iankellogg

Posts: 155; Member since: Jun 15, 2011

I do think once windows 8 hits people will start looking at that more. Windows does have a strong brand name and the hardware will probably be the same price with a lot more functionality. Maybe in 2-3 years apple can release mac os x for the iPad.

3. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Phonarena, please can you remove that annoying picture of Steve Jobs ???

4. hepresearch unregistered

Oh come on, Pete... are the iFans not free to worship their "holy one"?

6. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

there is freedom of relieigon, not freedom of worshiping apple... : P what does the american constitution say about that ?

8. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

peter, religion is what you want it to be. worshiping jesus, mohammed, the spaghetti monster, or steve jobs produces the same chemical responce in people that "believe" deeply. science fact.

11. zoom unregistered

Muhammad P.B.U.H was a prophet and we dont worship him but ALLAH ALMIGHTY

16. hepresearch unregistered

zoom... as a latter-day saint (a.k.a. "Mormon") who gets accused of worshipping Joseph Smith, Jr. (one of our prophets, but certainly not our "God") all the time, I can appreciate the good correction and clarification.

14. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

I know, people can have a religion about eating dogs or whatever. That's why i always say i'm not into religion, i'm into God ! I don't believe in any religion, religion can bind people in a bad way, that's why i believe in God, not religion. On a side note, you say "the same chemical responce in people that "believe" deeply. " doesn't that just prove that evolution is false ? If a creator created the earth and man, then he would make sure there is a chemical response when we worship him (even though some people have turned it on its head and worship Apple or whatever they worship,). Evolution would not do that by random changes.

19. hepresearch unregistered

Bad religion brings slavery and tyranny, and seeks to make its adherents ignorant... good religion brings liberty of worship and expression, and invites its adherents closer to the truth. Religion is a two-edged sword, so don't be so quick to say that all religion is bad.

23. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

I still have not heard from remixfa. My side note was meant to you remixfa, your on the stage now !

30. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

peter. a few things 1) if you only worship god, then do you also share views with jewish and muslim people like say ramadan and eating kosher? They both worship the same god. If not, then your still christian and need to accept that. 2) that physical effect in your brain is an endorphine release and the activation of a very certain part of your brain. you get it from believing in ANYTHING and something happening that fulfills that belief. It has nothing to do with your god, nor that pop up book belief called creationism. If i believed in pink poodles and worshiped them, and a pink poodle crossed my path, i would get the same head rush that you would get by some religious moment.

33. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

1. i'm not denying i'm a Christian. What i'm saying is that i'm not into religion, i'm into God. I don't go to church like some people do, i just believe in God and have a personal relationship with him, it's that simple. I hope you understand what i mean here. 2. First, creationism is not any pop up book belief. I've already told you that in order to believe evolution, you need to do some serious amount of believing as 90 % of the evidence points to creation (and the rest 10 % of evidence for the evolution consists mainly of carbon 14 dating, which anyway is proven a incorrect method of dating). Second, i don't think your'e getting my point. If you believe in something and worship something like a poodle then you would create a certain kind of chemical. If a creator created man, would it not make sense that he created it in such a way that whenever man worships his creator, he would produce a certain kind of chemical ? Why would evolution to that with natural selection ? why would evolution produce a kind of chemical whenever a man worships something like Apple or a poodle or God ? That sure doesn't make sense scientificly ! the only thing that makes sense here is that God created man in such a way.

35. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

problem with creationists. every time you dont have an exact answer you insert "god" and then say its proof of something else. lack of an answer for anything is not proof of another thing. noone outside of christians believes that creationism has any basis of reality. it is a strictly secular belief that belongs to a very small group of people, and thats why it should never be taught outside of churches.. and especially not in a publicly funded place like school, where an unknowing child might confuse religious misinformation as scientific fact or proof. you say 90% of all proof, proves creationsism.. you also say that google is going to start acting like apple by dumping all its partners and gouging people through motorola... and bada is going to become a huge OS.

36. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Where did i insert God isntead of a exact answer, tell me that ??? I didn't did i !? You know, lately there have been quite a significant number of evolutionist scientists that have left evolution simply on the basis that evolution simply doesn't make sense. These have not been christians, these have been only scientists doing their job. This is exactly the problem with evolutionists. Whenever the evidence is against them, they start to bash and start talking about google and Motorola, instead of trying to meet the evidence with scientific answers (which they can't and therefore start bashing. We have a saying in sweden that, When you run out of words, you take to the fists.) Let me give you one quick evidence. If dinosour footprints have been ofund together with human footprints, is the theory of evolution destroyed. Answer is YES ! Is there any such evidence ? YES, in fact it's right in Texas !

37. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

"Why would evolution to that with natural selection ? why would evolution produce a kind of chemical whenever a man worships something like Apple or a poodle or God ? That sure doesn't make sense scientificly ! the only thing that makes sense here is that God created man in such a way." that entire thought process is "well i dont know the answer, so im going to insert god and call it a day" i dont claim to have the all the answers, only religious people do. If you dont have an answer, you default to god. if you dont like an answer, you default to god. if the answer is obvious you find a way to tie it to god. Its exactly what you and ever other creationist i have ever met does. Its religous zealotry. lol.. so, if dinosaurs and humans roamed the same area (which we are doing right now), then its proof that god exists and evolution is wrong!?!? lol. Ok, link me to this proof that puts a dinosaur SKELETON with a human SKELETON in the exact same spot beside each other... not a foot up or down, in precicely the same spot. foot prints are too easy to fake. peter, your a nice guy, but sometimes your rediculous. :)

40. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

There has been found footprints of humans and dinosaurs in exactly the same geologic layer, at exactly the same place.. They have been found side by side, and even some where the human footprint has been inside that of a dinosaur footprint. Here are the link. (don't worry, this link is safe. It will take you And here is a very detailed video of the footprints. I recomend you start watching at 23 minutes and 40 seconds (that's when the evidence for the footprints are showed) they have also been trough scanning, and proven to be real human footprints, not faked. Also, there has been found for example a old hammer buried inside lower cretaceous rock ! However i'm not going to dicsuss creation much more here on phonarena though as it is off topic. If you want a email conversation i'd be glad to have it : )

42. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

peter, how do they know that footprints were at the same time and place and not just a cosmic coincidence of placement? Carbon 14? isnt that the same thing you constantly try to discredit. its either credible, or its not.. its not credible only when u want it to be. there is no discussion, this is why i wouldnt entertain it before. you cant discuss something unless your mind is open to it. hard core creationists do not have an open mind to evolution, anymore than an athiest like myself has a mind opening for creationism.

48. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

the reason we know that the footprints where at the same time, is because it is found at exatly the same spot, in exactly the same layer of rocks. that has nothing to do with Carbon 14 dating. Even evolutionist scientists recognize these footprints are from the same time. Please watch the links i gave you, if you have not done so already.

54. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

so.. what your saying is the "proof" hasnt been verified. I think a court would call that "circumstantial" and have it thrown out. just because 2 things appear to be related doesnt mean they are. Amazing your taking this "proof" at face value but want to debunk anything that doesnt agree with creationism.. lololol peter, there is no point in clicking the links. your not going to change my mind. in order for anyone to believe in creationism they have to 1) believe in the Christian god. 2) believe that the bible is in fallible. 3) close their mind off to real science. 3 things i will never do.

57. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

"proof hans't been verified", what are you talking about ??? There is no need to carbon 14 date footprints. When you see that they are at exactly the same spot. This has nothing to do with how old those footprints are, the point is, human footprints have been discovered together with dinosaur footprints. And either you evolutionists will have to change your theory and say that dinosaurs lived at the same time as humans, or your theory is false ! Seeing you write that you are not going to click on the links and watch the evidence, you are extremely unscientific. If someone finds evidence and you totally ignore it, then you are as uncscientific as you can be. That is what i call "closing your mind off to real science". It's sad that evolutionists totally ignore evidence that proves them wrong...

60. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

seeing 2 things together is circumstance, not proof. how do u know that they didnt fake the footprints? you have no proof. your taking this at face value because u think it validates your creationism claim while demanding absolute proof for anything to the contrary... and then trying to find ways to discredit it. they call that hypocracy peter.

63. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Just because you see 1 dinosaur footprint and 1 human footprint doesn't mean it is true. However, when there is lots and lots and lots of footprints of dinosaurs and humans at exactly the same place, the you understand that this is related and not faked. The footprints have been scanned with modern scanning technologies, and have been proven to not be carved and to be real samples of human and dinosaur footprints. If you had watched the links i gave you, you would have seen this yourself. this is the problem with evolutionists, when there is evidence against evolution, they come up with the most ridicoulus fantasies of them being fake. Even evolutionist scientists have admitted these footprints are indeed related and not faked (some came up with an idea that aliens had made the footrpints, talking about fairy tales here...) you said in your earlier comment that there were certain 3 things you would not do. One of them was to believe in God. That is unscientific. If there is proof for a God, you must admit that. Otherwise your are unscientific.

71. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

there is no proof of your god or any others. you see what you want to see. lack of knowledge does not mean god is the answer. that is the whole fundamental retardation of religous people trying to play pseudoscience. again, if a scientist doesnt see an answer, he keeps postulizing and experimenting until a decent answer is found. then other scientists repeat the same test over and over until it can be disproven .. or it can not. a scientist starts with a mind free of assumptions not answers begging for questions to fill it with. they take what is.. and figure out what it does. a pseudoscience like creationism first starts with a core belief like "there is a god and he created the earth" and then tries to find proof of that. which is exactly what you are doing. there is no science in creationism. In order for there to be science there has to be scientific method (which there definately is not) , there has to be clear and unbiased research, and there has to be a possibility of finding answers opposite to what you believe.. man made global warming as it exists now is also a pseudoscience. it is more religion and faith than it is fact.

94. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

Just like every evolutionist do, you start bashing and saying different untrue assumptions about creationists whenever there is evidence that proves your dear evolution theory wrong. You have not even bothered towrite scientificly like i have been doing. Thanks for letting me know that your theory just got proved wrong ! : )

84. hepresearch unregistered

in fact, seeing two things together doesn't even really mean that they happened at the same time... you can thank Albert Einstein for telling us about that...

59. PeterIfromsweden

Posts: 1230; Member since: Aug 03, 2011

And to add one thing. you say " just because 2 things appear to be related doesnt mean they are" that's ridicoulus. these footprints have been proved to be related. You have a dinosaur footprint, and a human footprint inside the dinosaur footrpint and it is not related. Yeah, your body and your brain is somehow not related either then i guess based on your reasoning.

87. hepresearch unregistered

co-location is not direct proof of direct relation...

69. hepresearch unregistered

Carbon-14 dating is not "incorrect"... it is simply not perfect. There are too many variables that can affect the isotopic composition of carbon deposits to make it incredibly accurate AT THIS TIME, but it HAS proven to give a fairly consistent level of precision. If we could understand more about the additional variables involved, there may be ways to improve accuracy...

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.