iPad runs iphone games out of the box in original resolution or pixel doubled (full screen). Display is 9’7. 1GHz processor, upto 64GB flash memory, WiFi + 3G, 802.11n, Bluetooth 2.1 + EDR. It weighs 1.5 pounds. 40 days standby 10 hours battery. Looks pretty much like iPhone just larger. wow and it has a keyboard dock. costs from 499 to 829 $
“New sdk so developers can take full advantage of the display”…but when will Unity support the tablet’s capabilities?
So if it just supports the iPhone apps, Can we just up the size in Unity Iphone (If even possible) (new Unity update?) and publish? Would be so freaking awesome 
the question: will we need an update for 1.5.1 before we can use the new sdk to test builds?
with 500+ unity Apps in the store it’s hard to believe the unity staff didn’t already knew the specs of the iPad for some weeks. Gameloft and EA knew the specs too.
So i bet we will see 1.5.2 (or 2.0?) very soon.
I would have thought that was a given.
The new iPad allows for full-on 2.6 development within an iPhone OS environment. To take advantage of this I may need to write two versions of my apps from now on. A version with Unity for iTouch and iPhone and an iPad version using torque for iphone. All of the performance issues with that should be negated by the iPads superior hardware. I also get all the features for 500 bucks instead of 1400. I can’t see unity responding quickly to the iPad and if they do it’s likely to be with a host of advanced only features meaning that I’d most likely need to upgrade just to target the platform properly i.e. not just throw my unsuitable iPhone apps at it.
From Apple Dev Center:
iPhone SDK 3.2 beta requires Mac OS X v10.6.2 or later.
Groan. I’m getting tired of forced upgrades…
just wait … 3.2 will likely also be the last opportunity to deploy to 2.x at all, with os 4 I take it as granted that 2.x can no longer be sent in
also we cna’t test unity stuff on ipad. unity iphone does not build for x86 (simulator), so you have to wait till you have an ipad
this is a big problem 
i think Unity need to re-think their Unity iPhone.
i like it very much, what i don’t like is to be “behind” other people… there is no way to test without a device, there is no way to use new SDK features, there is no “good” way to use objective-c and features that SDK has, but Unity hasn’t implemented yet.
i would love to see an Unity iPhone where i can code in Objective-C and use all SDK features and so on…
That one is easy, just write the function and create the binding function on the Unity iPhone Advanced end and thats it.
You can use all of the SDK features. You just need to know how to program in Objective-C. There’s tons of posts on the forums on how to communicate back and forth between script and native. We’re using GameKit in our upcoming Unity-developed game. Works just fine.
i know you can use Objective-C and SDK features with Unity, but the way i can use them it’s not comfortable, that’s what i wanted to say. i want to code in Obj-c and not to use bindings.
and compiling for simulator would also be great. we can’t afford to have a lot of iDevices at the moment.
what about Objective-C to Unity bindings performance? are they fast?
There’s no good way to test without the device anyway, Unity or no Unity. The simulator’s only good for seeing if something runs at all; you can’t do any real testing on it, and Unity Remote takes away a big portion of the compile->test->compile etc. loop.
–Eric
if you don’t want to use dllimport bindings, you will have to use an engine thats offered as source and work through the tens to hundred of thousands of lines of engine code to work with it 
the bindings are more than fast enough actually. Also there isn’t that much “realtime performance critical” thats not present already. The main things that you would bind are addon functionalities.
and compiling to simulator requires that UT additionally builds a simulator version of the engine so the simulator target can bind that one in.
my question though always has been: and whats the point for games?! No accelerometer, no multitouch → why would I want to use it?
hmm, maybe you are right guys 
let me think about it, one more time
Eric is right. Simulator is just for getting a very basic idea about your game(!) running on the device. Remote gets you pretty fast and pretty close to the real thing. But building to a real device is inevitable. Currently I prefer building to a real device over simulator or remote. I do it over and over. (Testing input related stuff)
If it’s true what Apple is saying with “running out of the box”, an iPhone is already a good simulator ;-). The display size doesn’t sound like a big thing at the moment. They double pixels or play it in original resolution if it was intended for iPhone.
We had already a little discussion about resolutions recently. http://forum.unity3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=40124
I’m concerned about this. My app does not get past the linking part of xcode build when I build it to 3.X. It states I have too many total references in my scripts. I had to build it under 2.X, it builds fine. I had to try to cut back on a bunch of references until I built it under 2.X.
Very strange …
Sure there is not something else impacting? (wrong linking order with “social network frameworks” added etc)
I even got mine to link against 3.1.2, which isn’t exactly known as being that Unity friendly^, after some talks to the projects linker flags with the “bruteforce hammer”
I don’t have any social stuff in the app. One day i built with 3.1 and it failed. I contacted unity support and they made mention of the refrences, so I took some out and it built fine. Then I added then back in 1 at a time until it failed. Then I built it with 2.x and it built fine, I then added the ref back in and it still built fine. Then I built with 3.1 and it failed. Since then I added a bunch of ref for app updates. I have not tried 3.1 since the first release, I just always build to 2.x now. I’ll try again to see, but I suspect it will fail.