Purported next-generation iPad frame compared to current model

Leaked images of the iPad 5's frame showed a device reminiscent of the iPad mini's design style, featuring slightly less bezel and less rounded edges, and now a new video has surfaced showing a purported copy of the frame compared to the current iPad.

The video, uploaded to Unbox Therapy's YouTube, reveals that the next-generation iPad is 17 cm in diameter, which is 1.5 cm less than the diameter of the current iPad. The video's host, who notes he has normal-to-large hands, shows that he can now fit the upcoming device in a single hand thanks to the smaller bezel, a feat he is incapable of doing with the current iPad.

Other changes noted in the video include the volume rocker being split into separate buttons, enhanced speakers and less tapered edges – all features found in the iPad mini.

The video's host doesn't say how he obtained the next-generation iPad's frame, though it appears to be a legitimate copy, sans FCC labels.

Apple is expected to announce its next-generation iPhone as well as a cheaper version of the popular smartphone at a Sept. 10 press event, though recent rumors indicated the next-generation iPad won't be revealed at the same time. During Apple's conference call in April, CEO Tim Cook said the company would reveal some "amazing new hardware" and "surprises" near the end of the year, likely hinting at an iPad press event shortly after the iPhone event.

Source: Unbox Therapy (YouTube) via The Verge

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

World's first anti-trolling software is launched. Most trolled story ever?

Next Story

Surface Pro 2: Haswell, more RAM and a 'refined' kickstand

50 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I think I will sell my iPad2 and get the 5, my dad have an iPad Mini and I really like the feel of the new form factor when you pick up the tablet, lighter and more comfortable, as the guy in the video said you can handle with one hand really easy.

wingliston said,
Change the size, isheep buys!
What do you call a Microsoft fanatic that buys even junk Microsoft releases? Just trying to keep up with these names. Thanks.

wingliston said,
Change the size, isheep buys!

Or color. People camped out for weeks just to buy a white iPhone even though they had an identical black model in their pocket the whole time already.

Will be picking up mine later this year. Not gonna buy a Surface until gen 3 or 4 and when the price drops $500 for the Pro with 512 GBs of SSD storage, 8 GBs of DDR 4 RAM, Skylake, Windows 8.5.

Mr. Dee said,
Will be picking up mine later this year. Not gonna buy a Surface until gen 3 or 4 and when the price drops $500 for the Pro with 512 GBs of SSD storage, 8 GBs of DDR 4 RAM, Skylake, Windows 8.5.

You do realize you can run Angry Birds on the Surface Pro, as well as Crysis 2, WoW, CoD, etc.

Sadly with the iPad close to the price of the Surface Pro, people forget that it is capable of doing more than browsing and running light versions of Apps.

(Heck you can even run an OS X emulator on the Surface Pro and have a full Mac experience on Surface Pro (or other Windows 8 Pro tablet) and not be limited to just iOS. There is also Bluestacks that runs Android Tablet/Phone Apps on the Surface Pro and other Win8 Tablets.)

Did I mention the pressure sensitive Stylus for drawing, while you are running the full version of Photoshop 64bit or Corel Painter for natural media drawing?

Being based on the TabletPC designs, the Stylus even allows full handwriting recognition for when you want to jot down notes and have the captured 'ink' converted to text on the fly or left in your handwriting but still text searchable in OneNote.

Edited by Mobius Enigma, Sep 4 2013, 3:09pm :

I think that if you're a power user or gamer you should go for a Desktop PC and not for a tablet.

A tablet for me is a device to be used in a comfortable place like a sofa or bad, so so can read, browse the web or check facebook or play casual games.

For a better experience running emulators and games, "raw power" is always welcomed.

Mobile devices need to continue getting better with graphics. The Intel HD 4000 isn't all that bad, but there is more to be desired I feel. AMD has been doing pretty well with those APUs but I'm not sure if they're working on tablet form factors.

Razer on the other hand has the Razer Edge Pro for $1299 and $1449 as an i7 gaming tablet. I can only imagine the battery is dreadful though hahah.

mjedi7 said,
I think that if you're a power user or gamer you should go for a Desktop PC and not for a tablet.

A tablet for me is a device to be used in a comfortable place like a sofa or bad, so so can read, browse the web or check facebook or play casual games.

For a better experience running emulators and games, "raw power" is always welcomed.

Most people would agree with you.

However, not everyone has a budget for a Tablet, a Notebook and Desktop Gaming system.

A 'gamer' should not buy a Surface Pro for pure hardcore gaming. However, they can game if they are out and want to load up WoW or SWTOR or Crysis. Sure they won't have the 'Max' graphical settings/quality, but the games are still playable.

The point is that people can still casually game, which is NOT an option on any non Windows 8 tablet.

Glad I waited, I was thinking of picking one up in April and decided the next one would probably be a redesign so I waited

4:3 aspect ratio still, really?

Do Apple consumers not realize or care that video moved to a universal HD ratio of 16:9 over ten years ago?

I know...
People will remind me that the 4:3 ratio is slightly better for comic books. However, how many people buy iPads for graphic novels, seriously? Magazines and books can reformat quite well to the 16:9 or even the non-conformist Mac 16:10 aspect ratio.


I know...
Apple got caught with the aspect ratio with the cheaper displays on the original iPad, and the lack of UI flowing/scaling features of iOS would require black bars or developers to redesign their Apps once again. But surely Apple can risk changing things for the better even if there are growing pains.

It was the persistence of older technology conformity that nearly destroyed Apple in the late 80s and early 90s and here they are doing it again.

/early morning rant off

Personally, I can't stand using my Surface Pro in portrait mode. It's just awkward. This both for reading content as well as browsing the web. However, the portrait mode is what would feel normal when you hold the device as a tablet. It's one thing I sorely miss about my old iPad.

Mobius Enigma said,
4:3 aspect ratio still, really?

Do Apple consumers not realize or care that video moved to a universal HD ratio of 16:9 over ten years ago?

Most people don't use the iPad primarily for video, though. Most use it more for browsing websites, looking at photos, apps and gaming. Personally I find the aspect ratio of the iPad to be fine, as it allows me to comfortably browse websites in portrait.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Most people don't use the iPad primarily for video, though. Most use it more for browsing websites, looking at photos, apps and gaming. Personally I find the aspect ratio of the iPad to be fine, as it allows me to comfortably browse websites in portrait.

This is almost a reasonable argument, but fails when subjected to a few logical thoughts.

1) Using this argument, then we would have to conclude everyone hates the iPhone with a 15:10 ratio and the majority of phones that are 16:9/16:10 ratio.

2) After several years of the 16:9 ratio as standard, the majority of websites are being designed for this aspect ratio in both landscape and portrait viewing.

3) When you have enough pixels to fully render the web page width in the 16:9 ratio, you actually get 'more' of the website rendered on the page. This is easy to spot when holding an iPad with the 4:3 ratio next to a tablet like the Surface with a 16:9 ratio. (A large portion of the bottom of the website is cut off in the 4:3 aspect.)

Even with websites designed for a larger width, when viewed by browsers that do well with resampled rendering, they are very readable even on lower resolution devices offering more content in the 16:9 aspect ratio.

For example, on a phone with a lower resolution like 1280x768, 99.9% of all websites render fully readable in portrait mode. This is how I use my phone and I wouldn't want a 4:3 aspect ratio and have to scroll more to see the entire web page.

I think the misconception goes back to what people are familiar with, rather than what actually displays the most content at time. The A4 and Letter ratios are close to 4:3 so people naturally assume this is the optimal format, and it simply is not. This is when people need to be reminded of 8.5x14 Legal paper and why it is used.

With new 'high' resolution displays a 16:9 display can easily render a website in portrait mode with pixels to spare. This is why we are moving to higher pixel counts so that we can get more content on the screen at once. (Especially when dealing with websites and print that have a predefined layout width expectation.)

Edited by Mobius Enigma, Sep 4 2013, 3:41pm :

NeoTrunks said,
Personally, I can't stand using my Surface Pro in portrait mode. It's just awkward. This both for reading content as well as browsing the web. However, the portrait mode is what would feel normal when you hold the device as a tablet. It's one thing I sorely miss about my old iPad.

How is having more of a web page displayed on the screen awkward?

I can somewhat understand the Modern UI with some Apps not being designed well for portrait mode, which gets a lot better in 8.1 and with App designer getting use to the 'flowing' nature of how WinRT controls work.

However, when viewing web content, the Surface with the 16:9 ratio is showing you more of the webpage than the iPad with a 4:3 display.

Again I think people are falling into the fallacy that A4 or Letter (Almost 4:3 ratio) is the optimal aspect and not realizing that more content is properly displayed on a 16:9 ratio.

NeoTrunks said,
Personally, I can't stand using my Surface Pro in portrait mode. It's just awkward. This both for reading content as well as browsing the web. However, the portrait mode is what would feel normal when you hold the device as a tablet. It's one thing I sorely miss about my old iPad.
I actually prefer using my surface in landscape while browsing the web. However, if I'm ever enticed to go portrait it is too long vertically.

Mobius Enigma said,

How is having more of a web page displayed on the screen awkward?

I can somewhat understand the Modern UI with some Apps not being designed well for portrait mode, which gets a lot better in 8.1 and with App designer getting use to the 'flowing' nature of how WinRT controls work.

However, when viewing web content, the Surface with the 16:9 ratio is showing you more of the webpage than the iPad with a 4:3 display.

Again I think people are falling into the fallacy that A4 or Letter (Almost 4:3 ratio) is the optimal aspect and not realizing that more content is properly displayed on a 16:9 ratio.

When you're browsing with a 16x9 display in landscape, I'll agree with you, it's great. However, when you turn the tablet on its side and the display is effectively 9x16, that's when things start to look weird. Try it. At least on the Surface Pro, it tends to scale the horizontal resolution so that everything will still fit as it did when it was in landscape. The end result is that text and objects tend to shrink to about half the size it was in landscape. Sure, you can zoom, but that will get tedious after awhile. If you don't have a Surface Pro, then take any 1080P display, turn it on its side, and be sure to rotate the display in Windows.

Mobius Enigma said,
How is having more of a web page displayed on the screen awkward?
It just is man. It's jarring, I guess, to see so much of the page itself w/o scrolling. I do like it when reading articles but that's about it.

MrHumpty said,
It just is man. It's jarring, I guess, to see so much of the page itself w/o scrolling. I do like it when reading articles but that's about it.

I never really thought about it, but you're right! I don't own an iPad or anything, but I've never had issue using the iPad in portrait mode. By comparison to how I use my other devices, I'd probably never consider portrait as an option. It just doesn't feel adequate.

MrHumpty said,
I actually prefer using my surface in landscape while browsing the web. However, if I'm ever enticed to go portrait it is too long vertically.

Yea, and that's the problem, it's too long, and everything horizontally becomes squished. When I have my Surface on some surface, I will definitely use it in landscape mode. However, if I am standing, walking, or just holding the device with one hand, it's a lot easier to hold it in portrait mode so that I can have my other hand free to actually use the touchscreen or the pen. And it's just awkward to view in that way.

NeoTrunks said,

When you're browsing with a 16x9 display in landscape, I'll agree with you, it's great. However, when you turn the tablet on its side and the display is effectively 9x16, that's when things start to look weird. Try it. At least on the Surface Pro, it tends to scale the horizontal resolution so that everything will still fit as it did when it was in landscape. The end result is that text and objects tend to shrink to about half the size it was in landscape. Sure, you can zoom, but that will get tedious after awhile. If you don't have a Surface Pro, then take any 1080P display, turn it on its side, and be sure to rotate the display in Windows.

This is exactly the point. What you see as 'things getting smaller', is what SHOULD happen with higher resolution displays.

Things are STILL readable, that is why we have all the extra pixels, and fits more content at once on the screen when proportionally resized.

If the screen is 6" wide, it doesn't matter if the display is 4:3 or 16:9, the content you are viewing is STILL 6" wide. However, on the 16:9 display, you have an extra inch or two lengthwise.

When the 16:9 ratio was first introduced in the 90s via the HD specifications and the resolutions for HD TV were set, a lot of people petitioned against the wide screen formats as they were 'outside' the standard PC/Mac display resolutions.

Even Microsoft in the early 90s pushed for HD to use existing 4:3 ratios and/or existing common resolutions like 1024x768.

People complained about Widescreen LCD computer displays when they first became available, just as people are once again complaining that portrait layout looks 'odd' to them because they are use to a Letter/A4 or iPad 4:3 ratio.

Technically and in 'reality' the 16:9 display if it has enough pixels, gives you more content on the screen at once for a propotionally resized website.

This is a pure 'fact', no matter if it 'seems' strange to you or because you have not gotten used to it or have eyesight that cannot easily read the screen.

If your eyesight has a problem viewing a webpage on a Surface Pro in portrait mode, you have no business buying this small of a screen or this high of a resolution device, as your eyes cannot discern the pixels anyway. (Or you could get better glasses/contacts/Lasix.)

This is even more true of phone users, 98% of people cannot discern a single pixel on a 5" phone with a 1080p resolution, but they will line up to buy them, only to spend their time zooming in on content, making the resolution a wasted specification. (Especially in portrait mode as it can render the website easily at 1080.)

These users could have bought a 1280x768 device and got a brighter display with better subpixel layout with brighter and more consistent colors. And as I mentioned before, even a 1280x720 or 1280x768 phone can render virtually ANY website and remain fully readable as there are enough pixels to display even the tiny text.

And yes I am specifically talking about in portrait mode.


This is not opinion, these are technical facts. Just because you think a 16:9 screen looks 'funny' to you in portrait mode is all based on personal conditioning that you need to move past.

Mobius Enigma said,
Technically and in 'reality' the 16:9 display if it has enough pixels, gives you more content on the screen at once for a propotionally resized website.

This is a pure 'fact', no matter if it 'seems' strange to you or because you have not gotten used to it or have eyesight that cannot easily read the screen.

Then why not have a 21:9 or 30:9 display? The reality is that tablets have to balance a variety of functions, most of which aren't related to video. Having used the iPad for a variety of purposes and in both landscape and portrait I have to say that I am happy with chosen aspect ratio; certainly I prefer it to the 16:10 offered by the Asus Transformer. You can moan all you like and cite various "facts" to support your case but at the end of the day it's about what consumers want and it's pretty clear that the iPad has been a resounding success in that department.

theyarecomingforyou said,

Then why not have a 21:9 or 30:9 display? The reality is that tablets have to balance a variety of functions, most of which aren't related to video. Having used the iPad for a variety of purposes and in both landscape and portrait I have to say that I am happy with chosen aspect ratio; certainly I prefer it to the 16:10 offered by the Asus Transformer. You can moan all you like and cite various "facts" to support your case but at the end of the day it's about what consumers want and it's pretty clear that the iPad has been a resounding success in that department.

I'm glad you like the 4:3 aspect ratio.

The rest of the world has moved on. I was hoping Apple would join the 21st century, instead the iPad looks like a TV from the 90s.

There are 'reasons' why the 16:9 ratio was adopted as a standard format and why everyone else moved on to it 15 years ago.

I didn't realize I was 'moaning'. You do have the choice not to read my comments, and they won't hear the 'moaning' voices in your head.

Mobius Enigma said,

Just because you think a 16:9 screen looks 'funny' to you in portrait mode is all based on personal conditioning that you need to move past.

Guess we can't have preferences.

Mobius Enigma said,

I'm glad you like the 4:3 aspect ratio.

The rest of the world has moved on. I was hoping Apple would join the 21st century, instead the iPad looks like a TV from the 90s.

There are 'reasons' why the 16:9 ratio was adopted as a standard format and why everyone else moved on to it 15 years ago.

I didn't realize I was 'moaning'. You do have the choice not to read my comments, and they won't hear the 'moaning' voices in your head.

The reasons that 16x9 was adopted had nothing to do with using tablets. And you cannot compare a smart phone to a tablet, as people generally hold those closer to their faces. And I'm not even sure why you are getting into pixel density; the aspect ratio preference has nothing to do with the pixel density. It has to do with the preference of how the content is oriented along with comfortably holding the device with one hand. I'm not complaining about widescreen LCDs, nor did I ever complain about them in the years they have been in existence. For some people, when holding tablets in portrait orientation with one hand, for whatever the reason, a 4x3 aspect ratio is preferred. It's nothing to do with conditioning; it's what's comfortable.

You can't say that everyone moved to 16x9 15 years ago because you're comparing apples to oranges; all of those devices are meant to be viewed in the landscape orientation. I've yet to see any TVs displayed in portrait orientation in stores.

woopy fricking do, tv's have had thin bezels for a long time, its about time the bezel got thinner on tablets and apple have had more than enough time to get a thinner one out. Guess its going to be there next new "innovative" feature

Spicoli said,
Wow, it's a rectangle like every other rectangle on the market.

Wow, it's revolutionary

Fixed that for you

Spicoli said,
Wow, it's a rectangle like every other rectangle on the market.
Childish! Is it suppose to be a circle? This is the same dude that will call anyone who speaks blasphemy of Microsofts products a troll.

Looks beautiful, might be tempted to jump back up to the full-sized iPad from the mini. When i hold a full sized iPad now it feels and looks horrible.

Oh wow, its a whole cm smaller and people's worlds are crumbling because they MUST have the new changes. Posts like this are just silly. Go give your money to charity and quit wasting your time.

chrizzle30 said,
Oh wow, its a whole cm smaller and people's worlds are crumbling because they MUST have the new changes. Posts like this are just silly. Go give your money to charity and quit wasting your time.

About as silly as telling people what they should do with their money. Get over yourself.

chrizzle30 said,
Oh wow, its a whole cm smaller and people's worlds are crumbling because they MUST have the new changes. Posts like this are just silly. Go give your money to charity and quit wasting your time.

I'll buy what i want, ****ing prick!

and FYI i don't NEED the new changes, i've been waiting for an upgrade for a retina display, i'm just saying i loved the mini design overall so would go with mini, but since the iPad 5 has followed suit it's going to be a harder decision.

a-hole..

Astra.Xtreme said,
It needs a kickstand so it can compete with the Surface for the "best doorstop" award.
All while narrated by Siri.
"Welcome home, Sexy"