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 1024×768, 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 1024×768, 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