Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Covert Video of Apple IPad 2 Just Released 190

Posted by CmdrTaco from the more-of-the-same dept.
An anonymous reader writes "This video has just been snuck out of the CES show in Las Vegas last week. Apparently this prototype iPad 2 was given to a Chinese iPad accessory manufacturer, presumably in order to help with their case designs for the launch of the iPad 2, rumored to be February 2011."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Covert Video of Apple IPad 2 Just Released More

Covert Video of Apple IPad 2 Just Released

Comments Filter:

  • Uh (Score:2)

    by Pojut ( 1027544 )

    I can't see the video at work, but can someone tell me if this is the same thing as the mock-up Engadget spotted [engadget.com]?

    • Re:Uh (Score:4, Informative)

      by iRommel ( 1684036 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:09PM (#34850084)
      Or even this one which we saw last week. http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/06/ipad-2-mockup-teases-128gb-storage-exhibits-speaker-grille-wev/ [engadget.com]
      • it sure looks like it.
        curved edges, front and back cameras, that weird vent in the bottom corner. Some of the icons in the OS look different (contacts is blue) and the resolution looks a bit more dense, as much as you can tell on camera anyway.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by icebike ( 68054 )

          Its a mock up. How could you tell anything about resolution from a mock up? A back lit transparency behind glass!

          At 4 seconds in, his fingers touch an icon. But nothing launches.

          Mock UP.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Tarlus ( 1000874 )

            Not to mention, I don't imagine Apple would etch "iPad 2" right on the back of the unit like that. With iPods they've always said, simply, "iPod" regardless of model or generation. (At least from what I've observed over the years.)

    • No, the Engadget mockup at least managed to get the typeface right. This mockup not only uses the wrong typeface all over the shop, it manages to use about five different ones.

      • Additionally, it may be worth noting that Apple generally doesn't put release numbers on their products. My iPhone 4 just says iPhone on the back, and I'm pretty sure my 3GS only had iPhone on there too.

        The grille is also pretty un-Apple these days.

        • Ya my 3GS just says iPhone. I checked as soon as I saw "iPad 2".

        • It's easier to look closely at the video if it is downloaded (as with DownloadHelper add-in for Firefox)and viewed in something like VLC. About 19 seconds in, it looks the the FCC IDs are almost readable. If someone with a video editing app views the video, it might be possible to find a better spot than where VLC can stop to try and catch those numbers and hopefully allow looking them up in the F.C.C. database to see if they match a current product or not.

          Since DownloadHelper doesn't seem to work with em

  • Not only will there be a case for the next iPad, there will be cases for the inevitable knockoffs too.

  • Not an actual iPad 2 (Score:5, Informative)

    by autojive ( 560399 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:12PM (#34850134)
    You can clearly tell that it's only a mock-up; a shell of what could be the new case design and a printout of the screen pasted on the front so I wouldn't call it a 'leak' of the device.

  • Beyond unlikely (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DavidR1991 ( 1047748 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:12PM (#34850136) Homepage

    In my opinion, there are two big issues against this supposed iPad 2: First, prototypes of Apple stuff have shown up before (on eBay) - however the key thing is, they tend to use the name / badges of the previous generation, or their name plates are simply blank (prototype Macbooks had 'power book' on them and the prototype macbook air's badge was blank)

    On top of that, Apple has so far never named a product with a '2'. There is no Macbook 2, no iPod touch '2', no iPhone 2 etc.

    So the likelihood that a) the prototype is a reflection of the finished product (with a proper 'iPad 2' name on it) and b) Apple have put a '2' in a product's name seems doubtful

    • Re:Beyond unlikely (Score:4, Insightful)

      by man_of_mr_e ( 217855 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:20PM (#34850262)

      Yeah, nobody has ever heard of the Apple 2. Right.

      • I agree. Apple II or Apple ][, sure. Apple '2'? What's an Apple '2'?

        Actually for a better example, iPhone 4 would work better - complete forgot about that. But then they were somewhat pushed into that name (for clarity reasons) by the stupid names of the previous iPhones. Not so with the iPad

        • Well, interestingly, iPhone 3G was the 2nd generation, and iPhone 3GS was the third, iPhone 4 isn't 4G (though a 4G version could come out.. probably called iPhone 4GS or something).

          There was also the Mac 2, which was an open design (compared to the original Mac)

          Interestingly, apple supposedly has a rule about naming anything "3", based on the failure of the Apple 3, which is why they went from Mac 2 to Mac Quadra (skipping anything that sounds like 3), but they seem to have violated that rule for the 3G an

          • The three rule was broken a long time ago, when the LC III came out, and was a big success.

          • Well, interestingly, iPhone 3G was the 2nd generation, and iPhone 3GS was the third,

            Actually not. The iPhone 3G was the second iPhone, but not the second generation of iPhone. The 3G is exactly the same as the original iPhone internally except for a new baseband radio for 3G. The 3GS is the proper 2nd gen device, as it used a new CPU at a higher speed. Technically, the iPhone 4 is still only the 3rd Gen iPhone, and still uses 3G cell technology. Apple screwed up here IMHO. The iPhone 4 should have been named the iPhone HD so that when the 4G cell technologies are available, they could have

        • iPhone 4 would work better - complete forgot about that. But then they were somewhat pushed into that name (for clarity reasons) by the stupid names of the previous iPhones.

          Pushed into it? I'm pretty sure they named it 4 to suggest to those who haven't done research that it supports 4G wireless networks, so when providers and other manufactures advertise 4G service, people think "Apple has that!". I still hear it called "the iPhone 4G" from time to time.

          If that wasn't the primary reason, it had to be part of the calculation.

          • You do know that the iPhone 4 was actually the 4th version of the iPhone right? iPhone, iPhone 3G, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 4. Maybe that was the simple explanation.

            • You do know that the iPhone 4 was actually the 4th version of the iPhone right? ... Maybe that was the simple explanation.

              Actually, it's not an explanation at all to the question "why did the company name the product with a version number at the end when they usually go out of their way to avoid doing this?".

              • Who knows what is in the mind of marketing? Apple isn't the only one to change the naming scheme:

                Windows 95
                Windows 98
                Windows 98SE
                Windows 2000
                Windows XP
                Windows Vista
                Windows 7

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by meloneg ( 101248 )
                  Well now, that's not even a remotely complete list. Where's Windows 1.1, 2.0, 2.1, 3.1, 3.1.1, NT 3, 3.51, 4, ME,...?

                • Who knows what is in the mind of marketing?

                  ...

                  Windows Vista
                  Windows 7

                  Actually, it's pretty obvious why Microsoft marketing went back to version numbers, especially considering the Mojave Experiment [wikimedia.org]. While it's certainly possible they might have just named it 7 because they felt it was the seventh generation of Windows, the obvious, likely reason is that 7 sounds as little like Vista as possible.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Draek ( 916851 )

          I agree. Apple II or Apple ][, sure. Apple '2'? What's an Apple '2'?

          How anyone with half a brain called the Apple II.

          In fact, I doubt even the most hardcore Apple loyalist ever called it the "Apple bracket-bracket", or that Apple actually intented it to be so.

      • Yeah, nobody has ever heard of the Apple 2. Right.

        Apple II

        Get it right. There a pedants lurking about.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      No, the second-gen iPad will be called... "iPad" (generation 2, or iPad 2011 to differentiate it).

      It's just a really well done mockup, I think, so the case manufacturer can show off their iPad 2G cases at CES. It's probably just a really well done mockup (it's non-functional if you look closely at the video and the screen).

      I think the manufacturer just took Apple's mechanicals for the next gen iPad and created some mockups so they could test their fit and finish of their cases, and marketing took the mockup

    • Well, aside from that whole Apple II thing...

    • On top of that, Apple has so far never named a product with a '2'. There is no Macbook 2, no iPod touch '2', no iPhone 2 etc.

      But there was the Lisa 2, back in 1984. Then, the next year, it was followed up by the Macintosh XL. Here's an old brochure [binarydinosaurs.co.uk].

  • Fake (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TrippTDF ( 513419 ) <hiland@NosPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:17PM (#34850202)
    The speaker grill and printing "iPad 2" on it seems pretty un-apple.

  • This wasn't made by Apple. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rayd75 ( 258138 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:18PM (#34850224)

    It's a nice-looking iPad 2 style case for a first generation iPad. It's well-known that Apple only provides dimensions to case manufacturers in advance of product launches. At best, this is a manufacturer's attempt to visualize what they'll be working with but it's really nothing more than a first generation iPad in a one-off shell.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rayd75 ( 258138 )

      I changed my mind... I don't even think it's a functioning unit of any kind now. The screen is printed, not unlike a display model cell phone. Plenty of discrepancies in the graphics, including lack of proper shading and the use of iPhone-only app icons (calculator & weather) point to it being a quick photoshop.

  • No RIckroll? (Score:5, Funny)

    by spinkham ( 56603 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:20PM (#34850248)

    Personally, I was expecting to see Rick Astley sing to me when I clicked this link. You missed a good opertunity, Slashdot...

  • I think this big phone is still not so convenient to take phone calls on the subway... Have they ever thought about doing a smaller version that could fit in a pocket?

  • Drink pretty good don't it?

    • Uh, yeah, didn't the iPad come out last year? I would be pissed if I hopped on the bandwagon of iPad owners, to just have Apple release another one a year later
      • The one year release cycle is a well known pattern with Apple. What would make you expect them to break convention with the iPad?
  • WikiLeaks should have been on top of this...

  • Grumpy old man time (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jollyreaper ( 513215 ) on Wednesday January 12, 2011 @12:30PM (#34850414)

    I don't like how short these product generations are. Yes, I understand that perfect is the enemy of good and trying to shove everything into the product to make it the best can make it unaffordable. The conventional wisdom now is that Sony did screw up by trying to push the Blueray in the PS3 too early. It made the whole thing too expensive and ceded the high ground to Microsoft with the 360.

    But I do have to wonder about a new pad coming a year later, as everyone and his brother claimed it would back when the first one launched. This new one is going to make the last one look like shit, right? Only a fucking barbarian would be stuck using such old kit. Rah rah. But seriously, what more can they stick in to make the thing better? Three years between refresh ok, I can see there will be some changes. But one year? It's just more marketing bullshit.

    I'm not complaining as someone who doesn't see a place for gadgets. I like them. I'm a fan. But I don't like the wasteful, destructive, consumerist crap that goes along with it. Should we really be trading out gadgets every year? Should we naturally assume that any product should be EOL'd after three years? Should we really feel good about this endless stream of expensive trinkets that will go from awesomest thing ever to landfill in 18 months?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Pojut ( 1027544 )

      I think the rapidly decreasing time between product generations (with the exception of gaming consoles...that's an entirely different conversation though) comes down to a few, simple reasons:

      1. The technology snowball is getting huge, and as such its speed is increasing (i.e. better technology allows you to make even better technology with less effort...look at the technological difference between 100-1000 AD, 1001-1799 AD, 1800-1950, and 1950-2011.)

      2. Money, money, money. As gadgets and various doodads

    • I don't like how short these product generations are.

      C'mon Grumpy, it should remind you of the halcyon days of the Detroit automotive industry, right down to the built-in obsolescence. After all, if you make the right product the first time, how the hell do you sell them once a year to rich kids?

      And get the hell off my lawn.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by mini me ( 132455 )

      What is a reasonable upgrade timeframe?

      Keep in mind that the original iPad does not stop working when a new one hits the store shelves. I am still using my iPhone 3G. It still does everything it did the day I purchased it. The release of the 3GS and 4 did not mean it needed to go straight to the landfill. It has lots of useful life left.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Pojut ( 1027544 )

        Same way my wife feels about her second-gen iPod Touch. She's going to get an iphone 4 when they come to Verizon next month, so technically that will replace the Touch, but she's been quite happy with it. Granted, it can't play some of the newer games (Infinity Blade being a good example), but it still gets used quite a bit (although, at this point in its life, it functions mainly as a Netflix streamer/Plants vs Zombies player. It will be further demoted to a "music-only" device when it gets permanently

      • The 3GS does, but support is already dropping for the 1 and 3G.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by mini me ( 132455 )

          Unless the hardware fails, how much support do you really need? The device will still function just as well as it did on the last day you had support.

          • I mean in terms of software updates. Once you're a few generations in, you stop getting the new features that get introduced for newer products. This is an old problem for all devices that have frequent updates, simply because it isn't cost-effective to develop for hardware that isn't being sold anymore.

            Specifically with the iPhones, many new features in iOS 4 could have been supported by the iPhone 1 and 3G hardware if Apple chose to make it happen. Probably not multitasking of course, but why not folders

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by mini me ( 132455 )

              I guess my point is that those updates do not make the older device any less useful. Your iPhone 1 can still do everything it did in 2007 and that will continue to be true until the hardware no longer functions.

              That's not to say that the new features are not desirable, but nothing has been taken away.

    • The conventional wisdom now is that Sony did screw up by trying to push the Blueray in the PS3 too early. It made the whole thing too expensive and ceded the high ground to Microsoft with the 360.

      Unless the point wasn't so much to beat Microsoft as it was to defeat HDDVD. In which case, big win. Maybe the wrong win, in light of the impending death of physical media, but still a win.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by toriver ( 11308 )

      Come, now: It's not like last year's model will stop working.

      At least it is just one: I have a bigger problem with e.g. Nokia, releasing ten phone models a year, how many of them are they actually backing, how many will meet with success, how cheap and flimsy are they making them in order to spread their total market share between so many different devices?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gknoy ( 899301 )

      There will always be SOME people willing to be bleeding-edge customers. They sometimes subsidize their upgrades by selling their older kit on ebay.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Draek ( 916851 )

      Should we really be trading out gadgets every year?

      No, we should not. Thankfully, chances are the iPad one will keep working long after the iPad two is released, so as long as you're able to keep your own tecnophile, consumerist urges in check there shouldn't be any problem.

      Fujifilm has updated their digital camera lineup three times since I bought my current camera, IBM did it twice for my laptop before selling out the business to Lenovo, who did it another few times afterwards, and if I had a buck for everytime LG has updated their DVD players since I bou

    • I don't think most people upgrade with *every* rev - most people probably would upgrade every three years or so, MAYBE every other year in a rapidly changing marketplace (smartphones, for example). And it isn't that the products are being EOLd for purely marketing reasons (though some are) it's more like the space just changes that fast as new players enter and start challenging each other to innovate.

      The point of frequent product refreshes is to get the people who say "I won't get that until it has x, y an

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

        The point of frequent product refreshes is to get the people who say "I won't get that until it has x, y and z." For example with the iPad, I won't get a tablet like that until it has front and back cameras and the equivalent of the "retina" display resolution.

        In other words, you're not buying a tablet for the next 5 years, because the graphics aren't there to drive a 300+dpi display 10" in size (you're looking at something like a 2000x3000px display, at least). No embedded GPU can drive this, and it's near

    • Just because they come out with a new model doesn't mean you have to buy a new one every year. They come out with new cars every year, but nobody complains about that. "Oh Jesus, the 2011s are out... my 2010 is obsolete!" In fact, I think most people probably *don't* upgrade their gadgets every year; it's just that the people who do upgrade make such as fuss about it that we tend to apply that to everyone.

      Releasing a new product makes sense, otherwise your product line gets stale and you'll lose out to c

    • They should update the product every year. You don't have to buy it and you can wait until the feature Delta is large enough for you. For example, my phone is now getting too slow for me, but the new batch of phones aren't quite fast enough. I will wait, but every iteration before I buy makes my next phone better, and cheaper.

    • It's Apple. They'll crank up the resources on the 2 a bit, then they'll release software updates for all the ipads that make the first one borderline unusable, and leave a few bits out for old ipad users, just like the did with the iphones. Those users will be compelled to go get the new one "cause it's faster and does more stuff".

    • For some people, a yearly refresh of a tech product is too slow. They want one every six months when some new chip/chipset or technology of the month is mentioned, ie 3D. But it's just not consumers that are pushing the cycle.

      Competition has a great deal to do with this. Take for instance the iPhone. With a cycle of 1 year it is a bit longer than the average which is 9 months. If Apple is any slower they risk falling behind their competitors.

  • I'd figure any real covert video of a real prototype Apple product would be far too valuable and difficult to obtain to just post on YouTube for free.

  • I'm waiting for the iPad 'with wings'.

  • Is it just me or is the fake background noise just a short loop?

  • http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMVhgSHo7EQ&NR=1&feature=fvwp [youtube.com] It's a fake. this is another video of the same device. However I bet iPad 2 will look very much like this.

  • Look at the back of your iPhone 4, does it say "iPhone 4"? No, it says iPhone.
    Look at a new MacBook Air, does it say "MacBook Air 2" on it? No, it says MacBook Air.

    Apple would never print iPad 2 on a 2nd generation iPad.

    • Apple actually shipped a number of prototypes to a variety of manufactures. Each with a different name. For example: iPad II, iPad 2, iPad Next Gen, iPad Mini, iPad Maxi, iPad jr, iPad Zwei Now that the pictures leaked, Apple knows which manufacturer leaked it. You know that the iPad 2 guys would not get the next contract. See, it's all part of the plan. That's why they have high stock prices, and we are just arguing about if they would name something with a 2 in the name.

  • Several details seem fake...the iPad "2", the camera which looks more like a sticker. And then the crowd sound is very obviously just a looping audio file, which I assume was put it to make it seem like he was at CES. Come on /., I expect better from you. Okay, wait. No I don't.

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Of course the iPad 2 is getting video cameras. The big question for me is: are they going to be smart and use the front camera to provide a simple hand gesture interface?

Slashdot Top Deals

Truly simple systems... require infinite testing. -- Norman Augustine

Close