Sources amidst Taiwanese component manufacturers tell Digitimes that the iPad 3, to be launched in March, will feature a QXGA (1,536×2,048 pixels) display and longer battery life.  Past reports have talked of a 14,000 mAh battery to be supplied by Simplo Technology and Dynapack International Technology.

Following the launch of iPad 3, Apple will reduce the price of iPad 2 to undercut competition from vendors such as Sony, Motorola Mobility and Samsung Electronics, who have products priced around the $359 mark.

I am skeptical, to say the least.  Apple rarely undercuts itself by releasing two products in the same year.  But we shall see.  I’m buying an iPad 3 whenever it’s released this year – cannot wait!

Image via CrunchBase

Related articles

• Retina Display iPad 3 To Launch In March, Much Improved iPad 4 To Launch In October [Rumor] (cultofmac.com)
• Rumor of the Day: iPad 3 Coming in March, Vastly Improved iPad 4 in October (suburbanmen.com)
• Report: Apple to launch ‘full HD’ iPad 3 in March, followed by iPad 4 in October (9to5mac.com)

Interesting to see how this will be designed.

Image by FrogMiller via Flickr

Related articles

• Apple files patent for iPod Shuffle-like device with built-in loudspeaker (digitaltrends.com)
• iCloud Libraries To Be Wiped Tomorrow As Apple “Prepares” For iTunes Match Launch (macstories.net)
• Apple patent suggests new iPod features (cnn.com)

The new biography of Steve Jobs, by Walter Isaacson, claims that the Apple CEO had “cracked” the secret of building a better television and was actively working on a prototype until he died.

Image via CrunchBase

Over at ZDNet, Scott Raymond argues that the “the product,” whatever it is, “will likely be an attractive, quality device that will look stunning and be easy to use.” Still, as Raymond admits, the road will be a steep for Apple. The market, he notes, is already chock full of inexpensive, high-quality units.

“I’m not saying that Apple should give up on a television product,” Raymond writes. “I simply think that they should focus on an expanded product built on the existing Apple TV platform. Make it bigger. Add [recording] capabilities. Put Siri in it. Then allow it to be plugged into a TV of our own choosing. The market for televisions is huge because there are so many different categories that consumers want, based on size, location, affordability, and so forth.”

Note that he’s not writing about a TV set, but rather a box, much like the Apple TV box that already exists. A full TV set opens a whole new can of worms.

As Peter Pachal of PC World writes today – headline: “5 big obstacles standing in the way of a real Apple TV” – the television market isn’t exactly like the smartphone market, or the tablet market, which Apple has sounded dominated for the last year. For one, the TV market seems to be shrinking, with Sony and LG posting major losses in the consumer electronics categories.

“The Consumer Electronics Association agrees: its own statistics have seen the overall size of the TV market drop from a peak of 34.8 million units sold in 2009 to a projected 32.6 million in 2012,” Pachal writes. “On top of that, prices are in free-fall: In 2007 the average screen sold for $982; this year it’s $545. Apple’s brand is powerful, but is it strong enough to convince people to pay more for TVs while the market’s pressuring everyone else to go cheaper?”

Related articles

• WATCH: Apple’s New TV “Will Totally Reinvent The Television Experience” (AAPL) (businessinsider.com)
• iTV (9to5mac.com)
• Apple will need more than Siri to make its TV plans succeed (venturebeat.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Windows On Mac: With Virtualization Software, A New Ballgame

By Rob Pegoraro The Washington Post

December 15, 2008

All three involve the same basic setup. After installing the virtualization program, you create a “virtual machine” — a special file that, from the inside, looks like a PC’s hard drive — and install Windows itself. (Or you can install Linux or another operating system, but that can be trickier.) Once you boot up that copy of Windows, they prompt you to install a helper program that makes Windows feel more at home inside a Mac and allows you to move data between Mac OS X and Windows.

All three programs ran copies of Windows XP and Vista on a pair of MacBook laptops (one dating to this summer, one the newer model introduced this fall) at an impressive speed; windows and menus snapped open and non-graphics-intensive programs launched about as briskly as you’d expect on any random PC.

Instead, most of their differences surfaced at the first and last steps of that setup routine. Compared to the free VirtualBox, Fusion and Parallels provide more ways to put a copy of Windows on a Mac and make it far easier to swap files between the two operating systems.

Both Fusion and Parallels not only let you install a fresh copy of Windows, but can run — without rebooting — a copy of Windows installed earlier via Boot Camp. They can also run virtual machines created with other virtualization programs, although this can require an intimidating degree of fiddling with file-import settings.

In addition, Fusion and Parallels can migrate a copy of Windows from a “real” PC. Fusion allowed me to move over a Windows XP installation on an external hard drive, while Parallels required a slower transfer over a local network. Both migrations yielded virtual-machine files that required extra processing on arrival, but this added step took at least an hour longer in Parallels.

Fusion and Parallels each made almost all of a Mac’s components usable inside Windows; for example, a MacBook’s iSight webcam worked correctly in the Skype Internet-calling program. But this hardware help comes to a halt when you start playing with rich, 3D graphics. Neither program can run nearly as many games as Boot Camp, and neither could display Windows Vista‘s transparent Aero interface.

These two virtualization programs also let you drag and drop files from Mac folders to Windows directories and move CDs or USB flash drives from Mac to Windows environments with a click of a toolbar icon.

Parallels, however, goes further in melding these two worlds — maybe too far. It normally runs in a “Coherence” mode that overlaps Mac and Windows parts on top of each other, leaving the Windows taskbar floating on top of Mac OS X’s Dock, with the Windows Start menu floating off to one side. The results looked, well, incoherent. Parallels also maps your Mac home folders to the equivalent Windows user directories so that you see the same set of files in each place, which was also confusing at first.

VirtualBox does much less than either Fusion or Parallels. This jargon-rich application essentially requires you to pay in time or expertise instead of money as you work around issues such as its failure to enable audio and USB support by default and its painfully wonky behavior with flash drives and CDs. Some of VirtualBox’s problems can only be fixed by an improved release: It doesn’t let you drag and drop files from Mac to PC, its shared-folders option is horribly awkward to set up, and it couldn’t play a high-definition QuickTime video without stuttering.

But VirtualBox did use less memory than the others, and it is, of course, free. It could suffice if you only need to run one or two Windows programs — a likely scenario for many Windows-to-Mac switchers.

The most likely scenario, however, may be this: A Windows user buys a Mac and doesn’t plan to run any more Windows programs, but can sleep better at night knowing this option exists, just in case things ever change.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Cocktail updated for Mac OS X Leopard and Tiger
• DExposE2 – Windows clone of Mac Expose
• Boot Camp update released for XP Service Pack 3
• TUAW Labs: VirtualBox
• VMware releases beta for newest Mac virtual machine

Ever since Apple announced the original iPhone, we believed that it would create an iPhone nano at some point. It would be smaller, less expensive but unlike what we originally thought, it would most likely retain most of the same functionalities (applications compatibility).

The current rumor is based on a case design from XSKN that found its way to the web. This is not much to speculate on, but the idea of seeing Apple go after a mass-market is interesting, but not unexpected.

What’s your take on this? Will this be an iPhone nano or a small iPod touch or both? Or do you think that this is just vapor? More images here

Related articles by Zemanta

• iPhone nano Revealed by a 3rd Party Case?
• Apple’s Debatable Need for a Netbook
• iPhone Nano rumors surface once again