A few days ago rumors began to focus on the idea that Apple was moving to a 4-inch screen on the iPhone 5 (or whatever Apple ends up calling iPhone 5,1). I went through the mental exercise of mocking up, and breaking down, the various 4-inch iPhone options to try and figure out how Apple would get there.

Now, however, the rumors are coalesced around one specific option -- one I initially thought had fewer advantages, and was hence less likely -- a 16:9 aspect ratio, 1136 x 640 display.

So what would could Apple, a company that prides itself in saying "no" even more than saying "yes", consider switching their best selling product, the iPhone, to a 16:9 screen?

The road to widescreen

Last iMore heard Apple hadn't settled on a new iPhone screen size. One of the versions they were testing had the same 3.5-inch screen, but they were considering going as large as 4 inches. There seems to be one or more prototypes with that screen size, including a 16:9 aspect ratio version. Since we also heard the next iPhone isn't shipping until October, there's still lots of time for them to decide. (Apple is the company that changed from plastic to glass screen in just a few weeks before the original iPhone launch, after all.)

Both The Wall Street Journal and Reuters have now reported a 4-inch iPhone. Previously a The Verge reader, who caught John Gruber of Daring Fireball attention, and later, iLounge heard something around 16:9 was a target aspect ratio. Yesterday Seth Weintraub of 9to5Mac ran the math and, with some other information behind him, and posted the screen resolution on at least one of the 4-inch iPhone prototypes as 1136 x 640. John Gruber once again paid attention to that ratio. Matthew Panzarino of The Next Web took the idea out for a spin, and asked the impertinent question I find myself asking all the time as well -- How would a 16:9 display help Apple sell more iPhones? [Update: John Gruber has weighed in on this as well now.)

The three laws of Apple products

There are three laws by which Apple iOS products seem to be governed.

1. Apple will only do things that grow profits now, or better position them to grow profits in the future.
2. Apple will delight users with magical experiences, except where doing so would conflict with the first law.
3. Apple will empower developers to make insanely great apps, as long as doing so doesn't conflict with the first and second laws.

Hobbies aside, Apple sells iOS devices by the tens or hundreds of millions. So far every iPhone has sold more than every iPhone before it, and that's a pattern Apple is going to want to continue. So far, the App Store has grown faster and larger than any software market before it, and that's also a pattern Apple is going to want to continue.

But there's a second factor to consider.

Design matters

Apple's Senior Vice President of Industrial Design, Jony Ive, has espoused a very specific philosophy when it comes to product development. Back in March, Ive told The Evening Standard:

Most of our competitors are interested in doing something different, or want to appear new — I think those are completely the wrong goals. A product has to be genuinely better. This requires real discipline, and that’s what drives us — a sincere, genuine appetite to do something that is better.

Under that mandate, Apple wouldn't switch from the current iPhone's 3:2 aspect ratio to a 16:9 aspect ratio just to have a different iPhone. They wouldn't change for change's sake, or for fashion's. They would only change to a 16:9 ratio if made for a better iPhone.

Ive also, just today, told The Telegraph:

We try to develop products that seem somehow inevitable. That leave you with the sense that that’s the only possible solution that makes sense. Our products are tools and we don’t want design to get in the way. We’re trying to bring simplicity and clarity, we’re trying to order the products.

So the change from 3:2 to 16:9 should be a natural progression of the iPhone itself. Likewise, it shouldn't make anything more complex, cluttered, or confusing.

It should make it even clearer.

Adding a dedicated OS space

With all that in mind, the least likely option -- though the easiest for developers -- is for Apple to keep the app space the same on a 16:9 iPhone as it is on the current iPhone, and use the extra pixels exclusively for new and updated iOS features.

In other words, the main iPhone user space could still be 960 x 640, and an extra 176 pixels would be put on top of it, on the bottom, or split between top and bottom.

There are several things such a system space could be used for.

Static dock/fast app switcher

Right now the dock disappears when you go into apps, and the fast app switcher only comes up when you double-click the Home button. An even faster app switcher would always be there, recent apps only a tap away, controls and older apps only a swipe or two more.

A static dock would make switching apps quick and easy, both intentionally and otherwise.

Of course, it risks accidental, app-switching hits, and it's utility in landscape mode is questionable.

It's harder to accept the premise of a static dock when we consider landscape orientation.

Static widget space

Right now, widgets are hidden away in the fast app switcher, Notification Center, and Siri. While many people have expressed a desire for widgets on the Home screen, there's also an argument to be made that making app data available in other apps is even more valuable. (The current version of iOS is an app launcher, not a Home screen hangout for a reason.)

Widgets that are currently hidden away in Notification Center and Siri could be always available.

Again, however, landscape orientation wouldn't be as natural a fit, and would either require new UI, or the awkward sideways treatment fast app switching currently enjoys.

Landscape UI would require all new widget UI, something Apple hasn't done for the fast app switcher.

Static notification space

Right now, Notification Center banners fold down over and obstruct controls like back buttons, and provide no in-app functionality. With a dedicated notification space, not only could notifications keep clear of back buttons, they could have enough room for in-app actions like iMessage quick replies.

The temporarily nature of notifications make them less suitable for a static implementation, however. If there are no notifications, it's wasted space.

Extra space to prevent notifications from obstructing buttons, and provide space for actions like quick reply, but would often also be wasted space.

And I'm not even going to bother mocking up how awkward that would look in landscape. (But see above.)

Static gesture control space

Right now, system-wide gestures are completely absent from the iPhone, even though webOS has had them for years, the iPad has them, and BlackBerry 10 is intent on using them as a major differentiator for pro users.

A larger capacitive area may mean there's room enough to explore more complex, if less discoverable gestures. That said, it's almost impossible to imagine Apple keeping a permanent dead pixel area around just for swipes up and down, backward and forward, etc.

On screen gestures and gesture areas have both been proven effective enough there's no reason to waste perfectly good pixels on them.

Static iAd space

Right now a new iPhone costs $199 to $399 even on contract, and companies like Amazon have already experimented with ad-subsidized price reductions on devices like the Kindle.

Tweetbot developer and all around instigator, Paul Haddad jokingly tweeted this idea, and I'm including it here just to make him regret it slightly.

Apple made fun of ads in Gmail, no way they violate iOS with an ad space, no matter what any patents might suggest.

Ad sponsored devices are already a reality thanks to Amazon, but they seem far, far, far less likely from Apple.

Static system space that can switch between some or all of the above

A combination of the above, but where widgets and notifications and gestures and all the rest co-exist in perfect harmony, in one Apple-only screen section.

And none of that is likely

Static system space on a small, mobile screen flies in the face of Apple's design philosophy. It would clutter the iPhone screen and ensure, likely much to Jony Ive's consternation, that no user could ever lose themselves in the content. The interface would always be there, staring at them, even when they didn't need it.

While more flexible than the hardware keyboards Steve Jobs mocked during the original iPhone launch, there are times when it won't be useful, and Apple is all about eliminating absolutely everything that's not essential all of time.

That brings us to...

Creating a bigger screen

If we apply Occam's Razor, the simplest and most obvious way Apple could implement a 16:9 aspect ratio on close to a 4-inch display, is simply add the extra pixels, optimize the system software, and let developers have at it.

In my previous post, I saw some problems with this approach:

Since pixel size remains the same, text size would remain the same, control/button size would remain the same, and touch target size would remain the same. Apps that use the built-in interface elements would simply add an extra row of information -- an extra row of icons, an extra row to the table or item to the list. The display would be vertically larger, and more information could be displayed on it. But what about apps that don't use built-in UI elements?

Safari would show more of a page's length, Mail would show an extra message, but games and anything with a highly customized, non-table based interface would have to be pillar-boxed. If developers made new versions that fill the extra space, those versions would be cut off on older iPhones. And if developers made 2 versions of the apps, it would mean more work for them and "fatter" binaries for users to download. (A universal app would go from having iPhone and iPad interface elements, to having old iPhone and new iPhone and iPad interfaces.)

While many things are possible, this doesn't seem like a very Apple-esque solution. It would fragment the iPhone platform for developers in a way Apple has resisted so far, and offer incomplete user benefits (increasing pixel count in only one direction).

More importantly, it would mean either significantly redesigning (or eliminating) the Home button, or lengthening the iPhone casing, or a bit of both. iMore has heard the Home button isn't going anywhere, and parts leaks have suggested it looks pretty much the same, so that leaves a longer iPhone and that... would be awkward. (Even if you remove part of the bezel to make room for it.)

Let's re-examine some of that.

Default apps

Apps that use Apple's built-in interface elements, especially table views, should enjoy some level of automagic compatibility on a longer screen. iOS simply shows more information -- another row, or partial row. These have been mocked up to death already, notably on The Verge and Overdrive. Here's an example of my own, if only to set context.

In a vertical table view, the additional screen real estate can simply show additional information.

So far so good, right? Even if text and touch targets aren't bigger, more information is more. It's no accident, however, that most of the mockups have been in portrait orientation. Depending on text flow, landscape doesn't enjoy the same benefit, at least as iOS currently implements it.

Due to the nature of text wraps, landscape won't often get the same benefit.

In general, anything in iOS that already wastes space in landscape orientation would only waste more space at 16:9

The keyboard

The keyboard could be identical in portrait orientation due to the identical screen width, or Apple could take some of the extra vertical pixels and add another row of keys, either numbers on the default keyboard, or special purpose keys on custom keyboards (the way internet apps add @ or .com, for example).

The portrait keyboard could either look the same or take advantage of the extra height by adding another row of keys.

It would be more of a challenge in landscape orientation, however. Would Apple pillar box the Keyboard? Scale it to fit? Stretch it to fit? Split it, iPad-like, to fit?

A wide screen landscape keyboard is harder to predict, and doesn't seem to enjoy as big an advantage from the extra pixels.

Custom interface apps

Apps that don't use the built-in interface elements would be letter-boxed or pillar-boxed in the short term (or if abandoned, for as long as they remain in the App Store), and updated to fit the new screen ratio as soon as developers get around to it.

Custom interfaces, like games, would simply be letter-boxed or pillar-boxed until they're updated.

Web and web apps

The web and HTML5 web apps are largely seen as size and aspect ratio resilient. They'll flow content into and around the space they have, and simply show more or less of it, depending on the height or width of the display. In mobile, they'll typically size or re-size to fit as well. Some websites and web apps will need very little or no changes to fit the new ratio perfectly. Others, especially more static sites that made fixed-asset assumptions, may need more work.

In portrait orientation, this means we'll typically see the same size content but more of it. That's because the width hasn't changed but the height has increased, and the content will fill the extra space.

In landscape, on fixed-width sites, we'll see slightly larger content but less of it. That's because the width has increased but the height hasn't changed, and the content will scale up to fit the new width. Fluid-width sites will likely simply fill the new space, keeping the content the same but showing more of it. (Though the nature of line breaks mean less additional text content would fit in than it would in portrait mode.)

Because of the extra width, web content will typically scale to fit it. That means bigger content, but less of it.

Videos and movies

The current iPhone screen is 3:2. Most web video (i.e. YouTube) and most modern TV shows are 16:9. That means, where the current iPhone has to letterbox these types of videos, a 16:9 iPhone could show them full screen with no distracting black bars.

Movies are typically shot at close to 16:9 or wider. 16:9 is 1.77:1. Most modern movies are between 1.85:1 and 2.40:1. The Avengers is 1.85:1. Star Wars is 2.20:1. Wider movies would still require letterboxing, albeit with thinner lines.

That means most videos will be bigger, and look better, on a 16:9 iPhone.

A 16:9 iPhone would require no letterboxing for typical web video or TV shows, and thinner black lines for typical movies.

Backwards compatibility

Supporting both legacy 3:2 iPhone screens -- everything from the original iPhone to the iPhone 4S -- and the new 16:9 ratio would be trickier. It seems unlikely that anyone would be happy with new, widescreen apps getting chopped off at the sides or top and bottom on old, standard screen devices.

Due to the way the App Store works, separate apps for old and new iPhones isn't a great solution either. Developers wouldn't be able to give new versions away for free to existing owners, and existing owners wouldn't want to pay full price again for what's essentially the same app at a different ratio.

That leaves the ugly but not unworkable option of multiple binaries or at least multiple assets to support older devices and the the new iPhone all at the same time. Depending on the app, there could be some efficiency achieved by sliding elements around to fill or conserve space, but worst case it's another big bump in file size. More apps hit the 50MB cellular download limit, and the lower-end iPhones can hold fewer apps.

And if an app is universal and already has an iPad interface, that would make for three versions (or at least two with more complexity) in one binary.

So why would Apple go to 16:9?

Given the need to sell more iPhones and make a better product, and given all the challenges listed above, why would Apple go ahead with 16:9? Why would they say "yes" to this screen ratio and not proudly "no"?

Content really is king

iOS devices have always been a screen surrounded by the least amount of other stuff necessary to make it work. The screen, more specifically the content it displays, is everything to Apple. There needs to be a bezel, there needs to be mics and speakers and the barest possible amount of buttons and ports. There needs to be a battery and electronics. But as much as that can be minimized, as much as the screen and the content it's showing can be thrust forward, the better.

Design is constant compromise

If Apple doesn't want to make the actual physical phone much bigger, if they can't make the side bezel any thinner, and if they want to make the screen bigger and the content it displays even more immersive, there's only one direction left for the display to grow.

Both the iPhone 4 and the iPad 2 designs took away visual cruft from the sides. Rounded bands were flattened, think frames were removed and buttons and ports hidden behind.

Now, maybe, Apple is ready to chip away at the front.

It's not an edge-to-edge screen, it's not a transparent display, but given the limits of current technology and the premise that Apple wants a bigger screen without having to make a bigger phone, it's the best compromise they can make.

And with less faceplate and more screen, it could be a more immersive, and a better product.

Predation over competition

There's a school of thought that, since Apple's iPhone outsells all larger screened Android phones combined on major U.S. carrier networks, Apple doesn't "need" to go to a larger screen for competitive reasons. However, that doesn't mean they won't go there for predatory reasons.

Just because people are buying more 3.5 inch iPhones than larger Android phones doesn't mean people prefer 3.5 inch screens. It means, as a total package, they prefer the iPhone. Some users no doubt compromise on a larger screen size just to get an iPhone. Others no doubt compromise on getting an iPhone because they really want or need a bigger screen.

Apple may just have run some numbers and determined that a 4-inch iPhone could outsell large screen Android devices by even more. With a similar casing size, no current users are likely to jump ship. With a larger screen, however, some who chose size over iOS might just make a different choice. Introducing a bigger screen could increase the iPhone's addressable market, and sell more phones.

Conclusion

While rumors continue to grow about the 4 inch, 16:9 iPhone, October is a long way off and Apple may yet decide a more conservative, less ambitious iPhone screen is the way to go.

If Apple does go with a 4 inch, 16:9 iPhone, they already know how they're going to do it and how they're going to handle any problems, pain, and other turbulence during the transition. Apple has rarely shown an aversion to those things. They'll relentlessly pursue the future and expect users, developers, and even their own team to keep up.

And it'll be for two reasons and two reasons alone.

To make a better product and sell more iPhones.

Additional resources

• The 4 inch iPhone
• How Apple could provide direct document access in iOS 6
• iOS 6 and the opposite of widgets
• Is it time for Apple to revamp the Home screen?
• The challenge of bringing Siri to the iPad
• iOS 6 and privacy: How Apple should draw inspiration from Android for better app

John Anastasiadis conceptualizes a Liquidmetal, carbon fiber, full screen iPad 3 that absolutely, positively will not stop until the iMore nation is awed.

We've already posted our iPad 3 event preview, rounding up all the rumors and outlining what we think Apple's likely to do with their next generation tablet. We've also asked you what you, our readers, expect from both the hardware and the software as well. Okay. Fine. Done. Good for us. Now it's time to have some fun. Now it's time to forget practical, forget realistic, and go full out, balls-to-wall, sky's-the-limit gadget porn.

Georgia and I, along with kickass product designer John Anastasiadis, brainstormed what we'd love to see in our dream iPad 3. We didn't go entirely Iron Man or Avatar transparent aluminum on it, but we didn't hold back much either. John then fired up his imagination and his rendering engines and brought it to vivid, virtual life.

• Smaller bezel: more room for that gorgeous 2048x1536 Retina display
• Capacitive home button and volume keys: Touch is the new click
• Quad core: Super fast, super fluid, with 1GB of RAM and 128GB of storage just because
• Single model: One device to rule them all: Wi-Fi 802.11ac, 3G, and international 4G LTE
• Liquidmetal frame/antenna array: future materials for future speeds
• Squared, angled edges: flat like the iPhone, still easy to get a finger under
• Carbon fiber back: Light enough for a Kindle bikini chick
• Super HD cameras: Crisp FaceTime in front, 1080p in the back
• Surround-sound speakers: Forward projecting, room filling
• Micro dock connector: Save room inside because more battery is more
• And Siri, of course

The driving principle was emersion. We wanted to get even more of the device out of your way and really let the content shine. A Retina display that big, that expectantly beautiful, deserves to be the absolute star of the show, bar nothing. (And definitely bar 3D. Yuck.)

The chipsets to make a single SKU don't exist yet but they're getting closer. Even though 4G LTE is a bag of frequency hurt, and Gigabit Wi-Fi is still a ways off, they're on the horizon. Likewise with 24nm 128GB NAND Flash storage at affordable prices. (Yes, even our dreams need to maintain the $499 entry point.)

Keeping the Home button was essential (our moms would find gestures utterly undiscoverable) but making them capacitive instead of physical seemed like a fair middle ground. Apple bought the rights to Liquidmetal, so why not put it use? It could maintains structural strength while still letting the frame flatten out and better match the current (and perhaps future) iPhone aesthetic.

Carbon Fiber was a tougher choice for the rear. John pointed out right away that it's not a radio-friendly material. This is fantasy though, and we wanted something that was really strikingly different. (So just imagine the antennas run through the Apple logo in the back -- which is why it's not yet glowing in this version! -- and around the Liquid Metal edges.)

Better cameras were a no-brainer, and Georgia insisted it was time Apple pay equal attention to better audio. Making the speakers surround sound and turning the to face front means they'd rock hard enough to make Dr. Dre run home and rethink his beats.

And yeah, the micro-dock, just because.

For more of John's work, check out his terrific BlackBerry 10 concept with a wrap-around screen and then head on over to the Anastasidias Portfolio for even more amazing design work (including a bonus render of our dream iPad 3).

Once you're done ogling, come back here and tell us what your dream iPad 3 would look like, or better yet -- jump into our Designers Forum and show us!

What would an iPhone 5 look like if Apple's design department turned to the Magic Mouse for inspiration? That's the question ciccaresedesign attempts to answer with this sleek, curved iPhone 5 concept rendering.

It's got the glowing Apple logo, so it would naturally sell like hotcakes, but it also looks like there'd need to be too many concessions to ever make a design like this practical. Can you imagine it weeble-wobbling on any table, desk or flat surface you put it down on? (They show it screen-down, like a Magic Mouse, but that makes my heart skip a scratch-fearing beat.)

Still, Apple has done the Braun/Leica inspired design for 2 generations now, and that means the next should sport a makeover. The iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S were decidedly flat, barely extruded rounded rectangles. But Apple believes design is about how something works, not how it looks. How would an iPhone 5 need to work? Bigger battery for 4G LTE, slightly larger screen to provide more ample room for content?

The only way to predict the look for iPhone 5 is to figure out the goals of Jony Ive and Apple's design team.

Check out the rest of the renderings via the link below.

Source: ciccarese via 9to5Mac

Imagine for a moment that Apple had come to market with a Microsoft Surface-style multitouch table, then take a look at these concept pictures of what it could have been. Forget workstations showing off blue screens of death, instead replace those thoughts with beautiful functional workspaces where placing your iOS device on the table could initiate an iTunes or iCloud sync.

The desk could sync with your Mac or potentially have a Mac built in, perhaps with a portion of the desk’s surface angled upward to serve as a display. Tactile keyboards could likewise be replaced by a digital touch-sensitive version (endlessly configurable to your preferences for individual apps), and any part of the desk’s surface could be cordoned off as a trackpad area. Files could be transferred easily between Macs, iPhones, iPads, and so on by sitting the devices on the desk and swiping file icons across its surface from one device to the other. Shared files could be passed between coworkers via digital inboxes, designated digital “trays” that collect documents sent from other iDesks. And of course, the desk would wirelessly sync to your iCloud account to keep calendars, contacts, and other data updated across all your gizmos.

Source: Mac Life via 9to5Mac

According to the NYT, Apple is rumored to be testing wearable iPod-like devices that fit around your wrist and are controlled not by touch, but with your voice using Siri.

Apple has also experimented with prototype products that could relay information back to the iPhone. These conceptual products could also display information on other Apple devices, like an iPod, which Apple is already encouraging us to wear on our wrists by selling Nanos with watch faces. [...] One idea being discussed is a curved-glass iPod that would wrap around the wrist; people could communicate with the device using Siri, the company’s artificial intelligence software.

Apple previously experimented with a nearly buttonless, voice controlled iPod shuffle but quickly returned to physical controls for the tiny device. Siri, which unlike the older VoiceControl system, currently requires a network connection to properly parse voice queries. Since no iPod other than the iPod touch currently has Wi-Fi, let alone cellular data, that raises the same interesting questions about the future of Siri and the iPod line both.

We've been asking for an iPod nano watch with Bluetooth connectivity for a while now. Perhaps the iPod will work as a tethered link to your iPhone?

Although it may be some time down the road before we actually start to see something like this materialize in Apple's product lines, it's still good to know they're considering ideas like this.

Source: NYTimes Bits

Concept image credit: Yanko Design

Better notifications is probably at or near the top of the feature request list for iOS 5, and Andreas has come up with a concept for how he'd like to see it done -- an Apple iOS notifications app!

He's set up a website and posted a video and... it looks interesting. Like Rene said on last week's iPad Live, Apple isn't simply going to add notifications any more than they simply added multitasking to iOS 4. They're going to look at the actual functionality users want and then figure out a way to provide it, in a traditional way or a new way. (And we'll either love it or hate it, or often a little bit of both.)

Andreas' idea isn't like Boxcar on the App Store or LockInfo on Jailbreak, it's a bit of a hybrid approach. Check out the video below and let us know if this is the way you'd like to see Apple handle notifications in iOS 5 (and why or why not!)

[iOS Notifications via The Next Web, thanks @KiTTGT]

Back in November I tried to imagine what Apple might present as iPad 2. So now, with the iPad 2 event scheduled for next Wednesday, March 2, I decided to go back, update them with any more recent information, and see if anything substantial had changed.

Note: There's been some debate about whether or not Wednesday will bring a "real iPad 2" or more of an "iPad 1.5". Apple has always been very clear about this. The original iPhone was 1,1; the 3G was 1,2; the 3GS 2,1, and iPhone 4 was 3,1. To Apple the guts -- CPU, GPU, etc. -- are far more important when determining generational jumps (iPhone 3G to 3GS) than case design or radios (iPhone to iPhone 3G).

By every indication we're getting iPad 2,1 next week -- a full generational jump. It may not be the extreme jump some of us want, but then some of us won't setting for any jump that doesn't include a vibranium/adimantium shell with full on Cerebro UI. (That's not happening this year. Maybe not even next).

What we likely will get is enough to make an already great product thinner, faster, and yes -- better.

My guesses after the break!

Size and weight

Steve Jobs downplayed the value of 7-inch tablets on a recent Apple conference call which means a) Apple will never make one or, b) Apple is about to make one. Take your pick. I pick the former, at least for now. Apple is making a big deal about how competitors can't match the iPad's aggressive pricing so are opting for smaller screens. Jobs also -- rightly -- pointed to how 9.7-inch screens allow for a fundamentally different software experience than 7-inch devices, which are closer to the 3.5- to 4.3 smartphones. So, the raw size of iPad 2 will probably be the same, as will the aspect ratio (more on that later). It will no doubt be thinner, however. Even if it's by 1mm, Apple needs to say it's the thinnest iPad ever when they introduce it or the keynote just won't seem complete.

That leaves weight. Amazon has thrown down the gauntlet on form factors, claiming sunbathing lady readers can't hold up an iPad in one hand. It's comparing unitaskers to multitaskers but never mind that for now -- it's a consideration. However, Apple manufactures iPad out of glass and aluminum and both of those are heavier than the plastic on plastic Kindle. They're also heavier than the plastic used for the Galaxy Tab (which I've said before reminds me of my 1980s Hasbro toys, absent the ability to "transform and roll out).

However, they're not that much heavier than the similar sized Android and HP/Palm tablets announced since, even though some of those use plastic shells.

Making iPad 2 thinner will probably shave down the weight a little. There are rumors Apple is experimenting with carbon fiber as a lighter alternative to aluminum but what can they do to make the glass lighter?

Speaking of which, switching to chemically hardened glass like the back plate of iPhone 4 would be interesting as a design choice, and case makers would no doubt benefit, but a sheet of glass at that size just seems too breakable on a device like iPad.

While iPhone 2G to iPhone 3G was also a significant design change, iPod touch 1 to iPod touch 2 was less so and that's what iPad feels like at the moment -- too early in the product cycle for anything radical.

Slimmer trim, flatter back, a look that better matches iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4 no doubt, but the size and weight probably won't change too much.

(Though it better have a slimmer bezel the way Georgia's been going on about it -- or she'll have some explaining to do come next week's podcast!)

Display

iPad has a 9.7-inch LED backlit, IPS panel at 1024x768, which works out to 132 pixels per inch. That's astonishingly less than iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4's Retina Display at 326 ppi. Will Apple go Retina Display with iPad 2? I don't think they can.

2048 x 1536 at 9.7-inch just doesn't seem affordable given current technology. Nor does it seem necessary. When you use an iPhone or iPod touch, due to their smaller size you need to hold them closer than you need to hold an iPad. Retina Display (pixels too small to be seen with normal vision) is relative to distance held, so an iPad would need a lower pixel density held at a further distance to still qualify it as a Retina Display. So could they go 1.5x? I doubt it. If Apple doesn't pixel double the current display in both directions -- like they did with iPhone 4 -- it would be a nightmare for developers.

So I don't think Retina Display is likely for iPad 2, nor do I think a change in aspect ratio to 16:9 is likely either. The so-called "wide screen" 16:9 ratio has always been a compromise and it wouldn't be a good one for iPad. Yes it's wider than the current 4:3 iPad ratio and the 16:10 ratio of some MacBooks but what content really uses 16:9? Not books. Not web pages. Not email or calendars. Not most things you'd use an iPad for, not even movies. Movies are typically much wider than 16:9 so would still require letterboxing. Only HD TV shows are consistently 16:9. If you're making a unitasking TV viewing tablet, sure, 16:9 is the way to go. If you're making a tablet that's meant to do several types of media well, I'd argue the extra height (in landscape mode) of 4:3 is far more valuable.

We've heard Super PLS rumors as well, but not enough suppliers to really deliver panels at the scale Apple needs yet. So iPad 2 will likely get the new, bonded/laminated screen of iPhone 4, so reflectivity will be reduced, and perhaps a better, brighter, more colorful panel, but that's probably it for the next generation.

Wireless and cellular

I won't hold my breath for LTE in iPad 2. Apple released the original iPhone 2G with EDGE-only support so they've shown themselves to be immune to early cell technology adoption. Verizon and AT&T are both pushing for LTE networks but 2012 seems like a target Apple would rather aim for.

A CDMA version, especially one using the new GSM/CDMA hybrid chipset from Qualcomm is certainly a possibility. The Verizon iPhone uses that chip, albeit with the GSM part not enabled. Could Apple do the same thing, use the Qualcomm chip for economies of scale, but only enable GSM/HSPA on some models and CDMA/EVDO on others?

Certainly. Maybe even probably. But enabling it to work on both carriers would be a huge plus. It would keep the product line simple for users and give them more choice with the same device.

And it would be one way to somewhat mitigate the chance of everyone just switching to Personal Hotspot (or Mobile Hotspot on other devices) and a Wi-Fi only iPad...

Capacity

iPad, like iPod touch, is currently capped at 64GB. Increases in NAND Flash density could see that bumped to 128GB in iPad 2 provided Apple can get the chips at a reasonable enough cost to keep the current price points intact. An ultra-cheap 16GB model -- or even a 2010 iPad at $399/16GB -- would be attractive if $599 and $699 shifted to 64GB and 128GB respectively. (The new MacBook Airs provide 128GB and 256GB Flash options, albeit at a significantly higher price point). Content gluttons would love it but Apple has shown with the Apple TV that streaming and rental content are their future and that means they may not invest in making iPads with bigger local storage.

If iTunes.com ever becomes a reality, with full on streaming, subscription, and digital locker features -- so we can get the content we want, when we want, and where we want it -- we probably don't need 128GB of storage on an iPad.

Unfortunately, I don't see either iTunes.com or 128GB options happening for iPad 2.

Processor

Apple's first in-house system-on-a-chip, the Apple A4, debuted with iPad and has since moved through the line to iPhone, iPod touch, and Apple TV. While Apple doesn't disclose the speed of those other implementations, they did announce iPad's A4 as 1GHz. Teardowns have further revealed that the Apple A4 is built from an ARM Cortex A8 CPU and a PowerVR SGX GPU.

While those are decent enough, both have been around since iPhone 3GS and both now have successors on or hitting the market. The multi-core ARM Cortex A9 and most recent PowerVR SGX would both help push a whole new level of apps on iPad. We've heard rumors for a while now that Apple has advised developers to start thinking about multi-core processing for their apps. That's a good sign.

Because Apple's rumored next-generation processor, the Apple A5 is said to include the dual-core ARM Cortex A9 CPU and a dual-core Imagination PowerVR SGX543 GPU.

RAM

Unlike chipsets, Apple has always been completely mum about the RAM in their devices. The current iPad has an anemic 256MB of RAM which is readily apparent by how often Safari has to reload tabs or apps shut down under the new iOS 4.2 multitasking system. iPhone 4 has 512MB, a significant improvement but iPod touch 4 stuck with the dismal 256MB.

More than any other under-the-hood feature, iPad 2 desperately needs more RAM to hold more web pages, background more apps, and throw more pixels around on the screen. 512MB is what the 2010 model should have had and by the time iPad 2 rolls around, Apple should be looking at 1GB. Again, they'll probably choose to keep costs down rather than boost performance up, and they'll need to maintain that $499 entry level pricing, but scrimping on RAM has begun to effect user experience and that's something Apple sometimes does value more than margins.

That said, no matter how much 1GB feels like table stakes in the 2011 tablet market, 512MB is still like the safe bet.

Camera(s)

All rumors and supposed checks with manufacturers and supply chains point to Apple sourcing a camera, if not both front and back facing cameras, for iPad 2. Given their investment in FaceTime -- which now runs on iPhone 4, iPod touch 4, and Mac -- that makes a lot of sense.

Will it be one or two cameras then, and will they be high quality like iPhone 4 or low quality like iPod touch 4? I'm guessing we'll get 2 cameras simply because both iPhone and iPod touch have 2 cameras. Sure it's almost comical to imagine someone walking the streets with a 10-inch iPad taking snapshots, but 2 cameras allow for the flexibility to easily FaceTime both you and what you're looking at. (No "intimate moments" jokes, please.) It would also let Augmented Reality apps work better on iPad.

But for those reasons, FaceTime and AR rather than photography, I see iPad 2 getting a lower quality camera than iPhone 4. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the 5mp sensor but if Apple's going to cut costs somewhere, a 720p video camera like iPod touch is a place they could easily do it. (And maintain room to offer a better camera with iPad 3.)

Sensors

iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4 both got gyroscopes in 2010. iPad 2 should get the same in 2011. It makes gaming and location services better and Apple's shown they can do it. This is probably one of the closest things I can point to as a lock.

Battery and Power

The current iPad gets a phenomenal 10 hours of video playback under optimal conditions. It seems almost impossible for Apple to top that but again Apple is likely to want the bullet point in his keynote so if there'a any way for Apple to hit 11 or 12 hours -- and be thinner! -- they will.

Connectors

Recent rumors of USB not withstanding, Apple has shown a continued aversion to any iPod, iPhone, or iPad port other than their own, now ubiquitous, 30-pin dock connector. They've included USB (and sometimes FireWire) on Macs, flirted with HDMI on the latest Mac Mini, and now introduced Intel's new 10Gbps Thuderbolt, but they've also introduced technology like AirPlay and now AirDrop in Mac OS X Lion, which may make HDMI as redundant to Apple's future plans as the optical drive.

Thunderbolt is a PCI Express and DisplayPort based technology, neither of which make sense on previous generation iOS devices and probably won't in this year's models either.

Likewise SD card slots. Apple puts them on MacBooks now but not iOS devices. Jonathan Ive has said they didn't put anything on the original iPad that wouldn't be used by most people most of the time. That's why Apple provided a camera kit, ugly dongle though it may be, rather than SD card slot for iPad. Has iPad usage evolved to the point where most people would use an SD card slot most of the time? Probably not.

As many complaints as we get about Apple not providing USB, SD, HDMI, or now Thunderbolt we get just as many if not more about Apple still requiring iPad's to tether to iTunes to activate, update, and sync. Could Apple take that wireless as well, with AirSync?

Apple TV's recent iOS 4.1/4.2 update shows iOS can handle on-device software upgrades, but Apple TV is permanently plugged in and doesn't require any media, apps, or other content to be backed up. If Apple is going to require power and/or backup before updating or syncing, neither of those functions will be going wireless any time soon. (Cloud backups of 64GB iPads just isn't realistic with current on-device radios, bandwidth and bandwidth caps, and power sources.)

So while the future is clearly wireless, that future isn't here yet and Apple hasn't been the type of company to patch future holes with past technology.

Conclusion

While Apple is secretive they're also cyclical and subject to the laws of physics and economics, which means they're somewhat predictable. This year's device will almost always be thinner and better than last year's device at the same price point.

So, more of an iPhone 3GS-style update but remembering how much better that S made the 3G that's certainly not a bad thing. And yes, that's whether or not an iPad 3 (3,1) is coming in September.

Apple can always surprise us though, both in features and especially in details. We'll find out for sure come Wednesday but until then those were my best guesses -- what are yours?

UPDATE: This article has been moved and updated.

iPad 2 rumors have been making their way through the internet pretty much since the day after the current iPad debuted but lately they've picked up considerable speed. Leaks have come from supposed manufacturers and suppliers, of course, but given the time of year and Apple's refresh cycles for iOS devices to date, we could be seeing an iPad 2 announcement as early as January/February and a release in April. Either way it's coming. We all know it's coming. (We've even discussed whether or not you should get an iPad now or wait for iPad 2 next year). But what will it be like?

Based on rumors to date, I'm going make some guesses... after the break.

Size and weight

Steve Jobs downplayed the value of 7-inch tablets on a recent Apple conference call which means a) Apple will never make one or, b) Apple is about to make one. Take your pick. I pick the former, at least for now. Apple is making a big deal about how competitors can't match the iPad's aggressive pricing so are opting for smaller screens. Jobs also -- rightly -- pointed to how 9.7-inch screens allow for a fundamentally different software experience than 7-inch devices, which are closer to the 3.5- to 4.3 smartphones. So, the raw size of iPad 2 will probably be the same, as will the aspect ratio (more on that later). It will no doubt be thinner, however. Even if it's by 1mm, Jobs needs to say it's the thinnest iPad ever when he introduces it or the keynote just won't seem complete.

That leaves weight. Amazon has thrown down the gauntlet on form factors, claiming sunbathing lady readers can't hold up an iPad in one hand. It's comparing unitaskers to multitaskers but never mind that for now -- it's a consideration. However, Apple manufactures iPad out of glass and aluminum and both of those are heavier than the plastic on plastic Kindle. They're also heavier than the plastic used for the Galaxy Tab (which I've said before reminds me of my 1980s Hasbro toys, absent the ability to "transform and roll out).

Making iPad 2 thinner will probably shave down the weight a little. There are rumors Apple is experimenting with carbon fiber as a lighter alternative to aluminum but what can they do to make the glass lighter?

Speaking of which, switching to chemically hardened glass like the back plate of iPhone 4 would be interesting as a design choice, and case makers would no doubt benefit, but a sheet of glass at that size just seems too breakable on a device like iPad.

While iPhone 2G to iPhone 3G was also a significant design change, iPod touch 1 to iPod touch 2 was less so and that's what iPad feels like at the moment -- too early in the product cycle for anything radical.

Slimmer trim, flatter back, a look that better matches iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4 no doubt, but the size and weight probably won't change too much.

Display

iPad has a 9.7-inch LED backlit, IPS panel at 1024x768, which works out to 132 pixels per inch. That's astonishingly less than iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4's Retina Display at 326 ppi. Will Apple go Retina Display with iPad 2? I don't think they can.

2048 x 1536 at 9.7-inch just doesn't seem affordable given current technology. Nor does it seem necessary. When you use an iPhone or iPod touch, due to their smaller size you need to hold them closer than you need to hold an iPad. Retina Display (pixels too small to be seen with normal vision) is relative to distance held, so an iPad would need a lower pixel density held at a further distance to still qualify it as a Retina Display. So could they go 1.5x? I doubt it. If Apple doesn't pixel double the current display in both directions -- like they did with iPhone 4 -- it would be a nightmare for developers.

So I don't think Retina Display is likely for iPad 2, nor do I think a change in aspect ratio to 16:9 is likely either. The so-called "wide screen" 16:9 ratio has always been a compromise and it wouldn't be a good one for iPad. Yes it's wider than the current 4:3 iPad ratio and the 16:10 ratio of some MacBooks but what content really uses 16:9? Not books. Not web pages. Not email or calendars. Not most things you'd use an iPad for, not even movies. Movies are typically much wider than 16:9 so would still require letterboxing. Only HD TV shows are consistently 16:9. If you're making a unitasking TV viewing tablet, sure, 16:9 is the way to go. If you're making a tablet that's meant to do several types of media well, I'd argue the extra height (in landscape mode) of 4:3 is far more valuable.

iPad 2 will likely get the new bonded screen of iPhone 4, so reflectivity will be reduced, and perhaps a better, brighter, more colorful panel, but that's probably it for the next generation.

Wireless and cellular

I won't hold my breath for LTE in iPad 2. Apple released the original iPhone 2G with EDGE-only support so they've shown themselves to be immune to early cell technology adoption. Verizon and AT&T are both pushing for LTE networks but 2012 seems like a target Apple would rather aim for.

A CDMA version, especially one using the new GSM/CDMA hybrid chipset from Qualcomm is certainly a possibility. If Apple announces a CDMA iPhone 4 for Verizon in early 2011 as almost all recent rumors suggest they will, it seems reasonable they'd do likewise with iPad 2 in a similar timeframe.

UPDATE: Verizon iPhone is now real.

Not only would this give Apple access to the huge Verizon (and perhaps more modest Sprint) customer bases it would keep the product line simple for users. (Whether or not Verizon and AT&T allow them to switch between the two networks, the way users in multiple GSM carrier countries can switch today, is separate question.)

Capacity

iPad, like iPod touch, is currently capped at 64GB. Increases in NAND Flash density could see that bumped to 128GB in iPad 2 provided Apple can get the chips at a reasonable enough cost to keep the current price points intact. An ultra-cheap 16GB model -- or even a 2010 iPad at $399/16GB -- would be attractive if $599 and $699 shifted to 64GB and 128GB respectively. (The new MacBook Airs provide 128GB and 256GB Flash options, albeit at a significantly higher price point). Content gluttons would love it but Apple has shown with the Apple TV that streaming and rental content are their future and that means they may not invest in making iPads with bigger local storage.

If iTunes.com ever becomes a reality, with full on streaming, subscription, and digital locker features -- so we can get the content we want, when we want, and where we want it -- we probably don't need 128GB of storage on an iPad.

Unfortunately, I don't see either iTunes.com or 128GB options happening for iPad 2.

Processor

Apple's first in-house system-on-a-chip, the Apple A4, debuted with iPad and has since moved through the line to iPhone, iPod touch, and Apple TV. While Apple doesn't disclose the speed of those other implementations, they did announce iPad's A4 as 1GHz. Teardowns have further revealed that the Apple A4 is built from an ARM Cortex A8 CPU and a PowerVR SGX GPU.

While those are decent enough, both have been around since iPhone 3GS and both now have successors on or hitting the market. The multi-core ARM Cortex A9 and most recent PowerVR SGX would both help push a whole new level of apps on iPad. We've heard rumors for a while now that Apple has advised developers to start thinking about multi-core processing for their apps. That's a good sign.

I'm hoping iPad 2 is where the next generation Apple SoC debuts with next generation silicon inside.

UPDATE: More details have emerged about the rumored next-generation Apple A5 processor, including the use of a dual-core ARM Cortex A9 CPU and a dual-core Imagination PowerVR SGX543 GPU.

RAM

Unlike chipsets, Apple has always been completely mum about the RAM in their devices. The current iPad has an anemic 256MB of RAM which is readily apparent by how often Safari has to reload tabs or apps shut down under the new iOS 4.2 multitasking system. iPhone 4 has 512MB, a significant improvement but iPod touch 4 stuck with the dismal 256MB.

More than any other under-the-hood feature, iPad 2 desperately needs more RAM to hold more web pages, background more apps, and throw more pixels around on the screen. 512MB is what the 2010 model should have had and by the time iPad 2 rolls around, Apple should be looking at 1GB. Again, they'll probably choose to keep costs down rather than boost performance up, and they'll need to maintain that $499 entry level pricing, but scrimping on RAM has begun to effect user experience and that's something Apple sometimes does value more than margins.

That said, no matter how much 1GB feels like table stakes in the 2011 tablet market, 512MB is still like the safe bet.

Camera(s)

All rumors and supposed checks with manufacturers and supply chains point to Apple sourcing a camera, if not both front and back facing cameras, for iPad 2. Given their investment in FaceTime -- which now runs on iPhone 4, iPod touch 4, and Mac -- that makes a lot of sense.

Will it be one or two cameras then, and will they be high quality like iPhone 4 or low quality like iPod touch 4? I'm guessing we'll get 2 cameras simply because both iPhone and iPod touch have 2 cameras. Sure it's almost comical to imagine someone walking the streets with a 10-inch iPad taking snapshots, but 2 cameras allow for the flexibility to easily FaceTime both you and what you're looking at. (No "intimate moments" jokes, please.) It would also let Augmented Reality apps work better on iPad.

But for those reasons, FaceTime and AR rather than photography, I see iPad 2 getting a lower quality camera than iPhone 4. Don't get me wrong, I'd love the 5mp sensor but if Apple's going to cut costs somewhere, a 720p video camera like iPod touch is a place they could easily do it. (And maintain room to offer a better camera with iPad 3.)

Sensors

iPhone 4 and iPod touch 4 both got gyroscopes in 2010. iPad 2 should get the same in 2011. It makes gaming and location services better and Apple's shown they can do it. This is probably one of the closest things I can point to as a lock.

Battery and Power

The current iPad gets a phenomenal 10 hours of video playback under optimal conditions. It seems almost impossible for Apple to top that but again Steve Jobs is likely to want the bullet point in his keynote so if there'a any way for Apple to hit 11 or 12 hours -- and be thinner! -- they will.

Connectors

Recent rumors of USB not withstanding, Apple has shown a continued aversion to any iPod, iPhone, or iPad port other than their own, now ubiquitous, 30-pin dock connector. They've included USB (and sometimes FireWire) on Macs, even flirted with HDMI on the latest Mac Mini, but they've also begun to introduce technology like AirPlay which may make HDMI as redundant to Apple's future plans as the optical drive.

Likewise SD card slots. Apple puts them on MacBooks now but not iOS devices. Jonathan Ive has said they didn't put anything on the original iPad that wouldn't be used by most people most of the time. That's why Apple provided a camera kit, ugly dongle though it may be, rather than SD card slot for iPad. Has iPad usage evolved to the point where most people would use an SD card slot most of the time? Probably not.

As many complaints as we get about Apple not providing USB, SD, or HDMI, we get just as many if not more about Apple still requiring iPad's to tether to iTunes to activate, update, and sync. Could Apple take that wireless as well, with AirSync?

Apple TV's recent iOS 4.1/4.2 update shows iOS can handle on-device software upgrades, but Apple TV is permanently plugged in and doesn't require any media, apps, or other content to be backed up. If Apple is going to require power and/or backup before updating or syncing, neither of those functions will be going wireless any time soon. (Cloud backups of 64GB iPads just isn't realistic with current on-device radios, bandwidth and bandwidth caps, and power sources.)

So while the future is clearly wireless, that future isn't here yet and Apple hasn't been the type of company to patch future holes with past technology.

Conclusion

We've already heard about device testing, and any week now we should get "little birdie" reports on the device codename and design verification stages. Maybe a case prototype will surface or blurry cam shot or two. Any of the above will help us further predict what iPad 2 will look like.

Until then, until Steve Jobs puts sneaker to stage and introduces it, these are my best guesses. What are yours?

Mozilla has an interesting Seabird concept phone rendering posted to YouTube. It looks great but disappointingly it's not real, contains technology that doesn't yet exist at the consumer scale, and is built on top of Android.

The Android part makes me sad, not because it's Android but because it's not MozillaOS (GeckoOS?). Google is basically doing now with Android what Microsoft did with Windows in the 90s -- providing manufacturers with something they can use pretty much off the shelf rather than rolling their own. So just like Dell, Lenovo, Sony, et. al never bothered to innovate or create great new PC OS, no one who doesn't already have a mobile OS (Apple, RIM, HP via Palm, Microsoft) is going to bother making one any more. Even the so-called Facebook phone looks like it's going to be built on top of Android.

That means, like Dell, Lenovo, Sony, et. al the innovation will turn to hardware, and differentiation will be left to software skins, bloatware, and stickers on the box. Impressive, perhaps, in the Alienware sort of way. But imagine if Mozilla was starting in the browser space now, would they just use Chromium instead of their own Gecko as the foundation for Firefox? Would Facebook have built their social network on the Twitter API?

For a while mobile OS were explosively innovative. We went from Newton to PalmOS to Windows Mobile to BlackBerry to Symbian to iPhone/iOS to Android to webOS and all sorts of experimental Linux-based OS that may or may not see the light of day. It was so much more exciting than the Windows/Mac/Linux pace of PC OS.

Sure it's hard making an OS, even with BSD Unix or Linux at its core. Sure going Android would certainly save Mozilla or Facebook or Verizon (yeah, went there), a lot of time and money, but part of me hoped we were just at some mid-point in the mobile revolution, that we'd still have the chance to be blown away by an iOS or Android or webOS again. That we wouldn't have to wait for the next big transition -- to neuralOS or whatever it will be -- before we get that feeling of everything being new again.

So great concept, great tech, spectacular vision, but that even in a video rendering this wasn't running an amazing MozillaOS as thought-provoking in software as the device looks in hardware, depresses me. (I still want those pico projectors and remotes.)

Video after the break

[Android Central]

Dan Wineman’s concept, above, for an iOS-powered Apple TV/iTV remote that's essentially an iPod touch without the screen, is interesting. Same accelerometer/gyro, same multitouch, same home button.

I think this device might even work as the only remote for the iTV, even when you’re just using it to, you know, watch TV. No pushbutton Apple Remote at all, in other words: everything is gesture-based. Tap to pause, swipe left to rewind, swipe right to fast-forward. Slide up or down to adjust volume. Home key to exit to the menu, which you navigate by flicking and tapping. And just imagine how much better seeking around in videos will be with a touch surface…

John Gruber still isn't sure if any intermediated device could work (though given you'll be sitting 10 feet away, one certainly will have to).

It’s an interesting idea, but I don’t know. The magic in the iPhone/iPad UI isn’t about putting your fingers on a flat surface and tapping/sliding/dragging. It’s in the direct manipulation. It’s that you’re touching the actual visual elements on the screen itself. A layer of abstraction peeled away. That’s why the Magic Trackpad does not make your Mac feel like an iOS device.

If Apple does go for something like this, however, you just know they'd call it Magic iRemote.

[Venomous Porridge via Daring Fireball]

It seems like just the other day TiPb linked to a concept rendering of what Apple's Mac Exposé might look like for the iPhone, and now Steve Troughton-Smith, creator of Stacks for iPhone, has gone and brought it to Jailbreak.

It's not publicly available yet, not via Cydia much less via Apple. But do we want?

[Slashgear via Engadget Mobile]

Ocean Observations brings us a couple concepts on how they'd improve the iPhone Home Screen (Springboard). The first, above, embeds a tiny CoverFlow for apps at the bottom of the screen. While interesting, since Springboard currently supports only portrait mode and icon view, as TiPb's asked for before, why not let it rotate to landscape for full-screen coverflow?

Next video concept, and another idea from Tog after the break!

Expose is awesome on the Mac, especially in Snow Leopard, but do we want it on our iPhone? The above proof-of-concept video offers a take on how it could look and work. Unfortunately, at that small size, are the tiny Home Screens discoverable? Would it work better if, instead of the Home Screens, it was a set of user-enabled background apps that were shown via Expose?

For both, holding down the Home button to launch would, of course, require giving up the current Voice Control activation, unless more complex controls like tap, tap, hold were introduced and weren't too user hostile.

Meanwhile, Human Interface Guideline legend Tog offers his own opinion on what the iPhone home page system (called Springboard) needs to do to handle 180+ apps. His suggestions, pictured above, include labeled pages, vertical as well as horizontal scrolling, user-controlled icon positioning (i.e. the ability to leave empty slots), the ability to rename apps, containers (folders), aliases (so you can have the same app in multiple containers), and tags (which he says Apple is already working on).

Take a look at the video and check out Tog's post, and let us know what you think.

[Via MobileCrunch and Daring Fireball, thanks Matthew for the tip!]

Fonzman1984 sent this one our way a couple days ago, posted on a French-language website fakeorreality.com, though it's spread far and wide since (and thanks everyone else for the tips!)

Current rumors have it Apple will keep the third gen iPhone looking pretty much the same as the current iPhone 3G, but like with previous concepts, what do you think of this approach?

If it's May, it must be pre-WWDC insanity season, and TiPb is expecting lots of leaks, fake leaks, and fake fake leaks. Also, lots of fun fanboi renderings like the videos embedded above and after the break, courtesy of Business Insider.

Not real, no way, but are these anything like the iPhonechromatic or Unibody models you'd like to see Apple release at some point?

Interesting concept video for using iTunes, rather than the iPhone itself, to manage home screen icons and layout. Single icon, multi-icon selection, icon and space lock and unlock, whole screen moving, sort by name, sort by last usage, etc. are all visualized and it makes a rather compelling case.

Would you rather (or additionally) handle icon/app management via iTunes? As we move to more wireless/over-the-air syncing and operations, do we want to have more reasons to stick with the tether, or could a MobileMe-like service include it?

Also, while it looks solid on 2 screen, what if you're rocking 9 screens, will it scale?

(Via MobileCrunch. Thanks to Phil from WMExperts for passing it along!)

We should start a new "Gizmodo iPhone Concept Art" category, because it seems like Jesus Diaz is throwing up one of these a week, each equal parts smart and silly in their own way. This week's version doesn't light my design regions on fire, but the idea of built in video iChat, compatible with desktops -- even with the Google Maps/CoreLocation chrome tossed in -- is very much "me want".

What do you think? I love the MacBook Air look, but in an iPhone? And is Mobile iChat definitely a must-drool feature?

Gizmodo has posted another concept image for the iPhone 4G, and honestly this one does not look too bad. Perhaps the edges are a bit squared but the Macbook look to it seems to be a good idea. This concept is pretty enticing with features like 32 GB of storage, titanium body, 3.2 megapixel camera, and messaging light. The messaging light alone should be enough for Crackberry Kevin to upgrade from his 3G!

So what do you readers think? Is this the direction you'd like to see Apple take with iPhone? Keep in mind this is just a concept and we here at TiPb did not name it the iPhone 4G. Sound off in the comments!

[Via Gizmodo, thanks to Gabe as well!]

Form-factor-palooza continues! During the iPhone Round Robin, our best frenemy CrackBerry Kevin spoke extensively about his desire for an iPhone Pro:

know a big part of the iPhone philosophy is to keep it simple, but sometimes it doesn't hurt to be a little more complicated, and luckily, tagging a product with "Pro" at the end covers the reduced intuitiveness of a professional device. At the bottom of the iPhone is a single home button. How about we toss a little Apple key to the left of it? Maybe when you hit that button you could get a few basic functions to pop up on the display... maybe like copy and paste? While we're at it, let's add a little back button to the right of that home key. The lack of a back key on the iPhone is one of my BIGGEST irks of all - you have to learn within each app the correct way to tap "back" to a previous menu (time waster). The most unified/simplistic means of getting back is via a back button. I know this is something that even iPhone fans (Rene, I'm looking at you) would like to see. Maybe add the ability to edit office docs natively - it's not something one typically does on a smartphone all that often (more likely to view than to edit), but sometimes "Pro" users do have to make changes on the go. And last but not least, give it a flashing red light. In other words, make it more like a BlackBerry!

Seems he's not alone, though Gizmodo certainly takes it to another level entirely: enter the slider! (Or re-enter, as we heard rumors of the iSlider back in July...) It's not TiPb's cup of tea. We're still predicting an iPhone HD, but sans-slider. We highly doubt it's something Apple would ever consider either, but we're sure it would appeal to at least some of the HTC Pro/G1 crowd.

What do you think? Does the iPhone need it a big @$$ keyboard for 2009?

First came the iPod, then came the iPod Nano. Well, okay, there was the intermediary Mini, but that's neither here nor there. Eventually -- and currently -- there was -- and is -- the Nano. So it should come as no surprise that ever since Steve Jobs dropped the iPhone bomb back at Macworld 2007, people (and analysts, who may still technically be people?) have been predicting an iPhone Nano.

And now some Apple patents have been revealed which may just bring it a few technical hurdles closer to being!

In a nutshell, it covers a method for making an iPhone-style touchscreen out of "sensor panel substrate called polyethylene terephthalate (PET)". It's directed towards an iPod Classic style device, although an example phone is also detailed, but in our iPhone world, we're imagining it might also one day find its way into an iPhone Nano as well...

Check the read link for a much more in depth rundown...

Read