Yeah, but have you seen the files sizes on some of Apple's latest initiative: TextBooks?
Throw in a few high resolution games, some movies, music and, some iTextBooks and you're ****ed with 16GB.
Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?
Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.
Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.
However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.
Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computers?most of the apps never get opened.
As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.
Take a deeeeeep breath and relax. Tim and company have you covered. Large storage may be needed if this were an Android, but it's not... this device is magical.
When large storage is deemed necessary it's available: in those 32 and 64 GB versions. For users solely interested in something they'll use in a high speed WiFi environment and thus with Cloud access readily available the 16 might be all they ever need. So that's all they have to buy...
Most people I know don't put all the music they illegally torrented or downloaded from Limewire a decade ago. Most people I know don't store a crap load of videos. No one I know is keeping any, much less every iBookstore textbook on their iPad. Surely this is anecdotal, but using it for mail, Safari, some apps and reading books is the likely the most common usage.
Just to be clear, you call it rudimentary usage because acting like an elitist demanding something and then throwing a tantrum if reality don't match up with your fantasy is perfectly fine behaviour? Go with that¡
First of all don't condescend me with [sic] for autocorrect not working like it should on "the" and start being a bit more respectful to other posters here because you might be intelligent and have a solid knowledge when it comes to apple, but you are also incapable of conducting a discussion where you don't put whatever rationalization you have on apple across with scarce regard for what others are saying, making it immensely hard to impossible for people to converse with you.
Again in order to put your point across you have conveniently omitted to respond to two very lengthy posts of mine which I explained iPad usage in very much detail. You want to keep talking to your self, be my guest. I realise once again how pointless it is -to me at least- to have a conversion with you.
Again in order to put your point across you have conveniently omitted to respond to two very lengthy posts of mine which I explained iPad usage in very much detail. You want to keep talking to your self, be my guest. I realise once again how pointless it is -to me at least- to have a conversion with you.
Don't respond if you don't want to but know that if you make irrational, egocentric claims about what Apple should do because you want it I will call you out just as I would hope others would call me out for the same thing. In fact.... I demand it. \
The optimal size SSD for an entry iPad 3 is... 144 MB... er, ah... 24 GB.
Where are those BubbleMemories or those MagnetoRestrictive delay lines when we need them?
They have two chips in the iPad so they could do uneven building if there was a slight issue with cost or availability. Meaning they could go with a 64GB chip and 32GB for 96GB, assuming they can even use a 64GB modules. I know they use 1x16GB module as they tend to use the lower capacity models for the teardowns so perhaps to get the performance and reliability they can feasibly only go 2x32GB at this point. If that's the case I hope they'd at least consider 3 chips so they could increase capacity but it's not looking good at this point.
edit: Single 64GB chip in iPhone at about 20MBps so performance and reliability don't seem to be the big factors.
The problem with RAM is that it requires constant power to hold its data. Not so great for a device that runs off of a temporary battery. If Apple increases the RAM. It will be because of an extremely energy efficient form of RAM.
More RAM may take more power but not increasing it stunts platform growth.
Quote:
The only real benefit of quad core processors. Is if the applications or the OS can really make use of all of four cores at any one particular time. Otherwise its over kill for the sake of marketing.
That is easy! The real trick is to get an app to leverage those cores regularly.
Quote:
That is the state of Android. They are introducing quad core phones. But there really is nothing that can take much practical advantage of them.
The iPad isn't a phone, it is a computer, the Russians have said so!!! That being said you might be surprised at how well many apps could already use the extra cores. Apple has been on the threading warpath for sometime now.
I'm, unsuccessfully, trying to convince you to act rationally and stop saying you're justified in demanding a company make the exact product you want simply because you want it without any regard for how they make money, what their costs are, or their supply and demand.
They may very well offer a 128GB iPad. That would be great and I'd likely buy that model with the cellular card even if cost more than the current 64GB WiFi+3G model, but I'm hoping, your demanding. You can't see a difference because, well, I'm rational and you are you.
PS: It's great how you came to that $304 window for doubling the flash storage. I'm not even going to ask you are arrived at those upper and lower values... I'm sure it's all above board¡
Of course you are rational, because whatever the user demands, even if it's such a paltry demand as to add a few more gbs to their base model which they haven't done in two going to three years, so it can be barely functional based on the uses they promote for it and content, your response is I don't have a regard for their costs, supply and demand, yada, yada yada, because you have conclusively proven that all these "fundamental commerce laws" are preventing apple, and you ve also conclusivley proven that it is not a matter of higher margins, or them wanting to artificially cripple the low end device so the user will have to buy again in a year. It's very ironic the level of irrationality you are demnonstrating, simply because of your pathological compulsion to rationalise any decision apple makes in favour of apple.
Safari is a prime example. In many cases more RAM would save power by reducing data transfers and save users money by reducing bandwidth usage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34
More power is used grabbing data over a network again than storing it in RAM. And there are few applications that would use all 4 cores effectively (heck, most don't bother to use two because it's really not needed).
Actually I think you are a little off there many apps do put those cores to good use.
Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?
Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.
Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.
However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.
Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computers?most of the apps never get opened.
As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.
This argument reminds me of the ones I had back during my M.E. undergrad days when a few classmates would bring Thermo, Machine Design, DiffEq, Fluids, all together with them to the Student Union Building as if they were going to even go through it all. Then they'd complain about the weight of the textbooks.
I'd tell them to stop bringing books to lecture hall and if they were going to remain on campus to study often to rent a locker in the Student Gaming area and put all the textbooks in there. The smart ones figured that out quick. Cheap and allowed for a light backpack or sidepack.
Store the bulk of your textbooks on your Mac and in the Cloud.
This argument reminds me of the ones I had back during my M.E. undergrad days when a few classmates would bring Thermo, Machine Design, DiffEq, Fluids, all together with them to the Student Union Building as if they were going to even go through it all. Then they'd complain about the weight of the textbooks.
I'd tell them to stop bringing books to lecture hall and if they were going to remain on campus to study often to rent a locker in the Student Gaming area and put all the textbooks in there. The smart ones figured that out quick. Cheap and allowed for a light backpack or sidepack.
Store the bulk of your textbooks on your Mac and in the Cloud.
Damn this cloud, I would be still enjoying snow leopard hadn't I wished to be on it...
Quick, now do a rumor with A6, 512MB RAM, and no LTE. Then LTE, A5X, and 1GB RAM. And every other possible freaking combination you can do in less than 24 hours.
Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?
Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.
Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.
However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.
Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computers…most of the apps never get opened.
As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.
Yes, I saw what you were commenting on, but the point still stands. I'm looking at some of the popular games on the App Store right now:
Grand Theft Auto 3: 460 MB
Infinity Blade II: 940 MB
Rage 3D: 1.2 GB
Hell, that's nearly 3GB for just three games.
The average SD movie on iTunes is 1 to 2 GB. Throw in your other apps, music, pictures, etc and 16GB starts to get confining. Throw in the double resolution and higher resolution textures for games, and watch those file sizes start increasing.
And I said TextBooks, not regular iBooks. Here are the file sizes of the 10 featured TextBooks on the main page:
970 MB
2.35 GB
1.11 GB
2.79 GB
1.5 GB
929 MB
934 MB
1.26 GB
2.31 GB
1.22 GB
All I'm saying is that bumping up the base storage for the THIRD generation iPad to 32GB would give most people more breathing room and doesn't seem like too much to ask. I mean, give me a break. The highest capacity iPhone is 64GB and it's not nearly as capable as the iPad. To cripple the iPad to the same size limitation as the "inferior" iPhone with this generation seems unthinkable.
Hell, most of you people are acting like we're trying to stab your mother in the back by even suggesting the idea.
That does not mean that I think we will get it this go around. Why? Pretty simple I have to imagine that the new retina screen is very expensive relative to the current LCD and will remain so for the year. Hopefully by the time 2013 rolls around costs will be down to allow for more flash at the established price points. Right now RAM and the processor improvements to drive the screen are far more important.
Safari is a prime example. In many cases more RAM would save power by reducing data transfers and save users money by reducing bandwidth usage.
Actually I think you are a little off there many apps do put those cores to good use.
As to your Safari comment...
When Kindle released the Fire they made a big to-do about their efficient browser that anticipated page requests, pre-fetched them, cached them on their servers, then downloaded multiple pages with a single request/response...
They quickly backed off this implementation when the users complained about the slowness...
I always thought that it sounded like a good idea, but that the poor performance was likely due to the low usage of the web by the Kindle Fires -- more Fires hitting web pages == more effective prediction and caching.
Back in the day when I did web development, most people used 64 Kb modems. Each page request, and each hidden request for and image, script, link, etc. involved a separate request/response turn around. Every turn around could take 1-2 seconds...
Therefore, it was very important to minimize these hidden requests in every web page -- a request for a single page could easily result is 20-30 request/response turnarounds.
I haven't done any web design for years, so I don't know if this problem (multiple request/response turn arounds per page) still exists... though, observing the way some pages load [slowly] I think the problem is still there -- but masked by much higher bandwidth.
If the latter is true, then there would be great benefit to the server pre-fetching pages (including all their hidden requests), caching them -- then downloading it in one one request/response turnaround...
With an efficient, active server caching anticipated page requests, the server could download and buffer anticipated pages along with the original page request...
Overall, if you have available RAM on the device -- you could access more data, faster while using significantly less bandwidth.
A by-product is that you could optionally eliminate all ads and tracking.
If people want to rationalise, they can turn black to white, day to night...
3 games, 2 textbooks or other rich media books, 4-5 music albums, 3-4 audiobooks, 1 movie (or two video podcast episodes), 10-20 apps, one magazine subscription and the 16gb iPad is almost full because as you rightly say 16gb is phone storage from 3 years ago not a post computer device's storage in 2012. It's as simple as that, and we are here debating the bleeding obvious alas...
If people want to rationalise, they can turn black to white, day to night...
3 games, 2 textbooks or other rich media books, 4-5 music albums, 3-4 audiobooks, 1 movie (or two video podcast episodes), 10-20 apps, one magazine subscription and the 16gb iPad is almost full because as you rightly say 16gb is phone storage from 3 years ago not a post computer device's storage in 2012. It's as simple as that, and we are here debating the bleeding obvious alas...
Exactly. It's like people are somehow OFFENDED that we even make the suggestion that in this day and age, more storage is probably going to be needed especially with a double rez screen and the apps that will come along with it.
And this age of 3GB limitations (AT&T) and capped data, this whole idea of streaming everything from iCloud isn't going to go very far either. And the iPad is supposed to be a post PC device that replaces the need for low-end notebooks or netbooks, yet I just keep hearing people talk about transferring data back and forth to their PCs or Macs in order to "conserve space".
That's the OLD way of thinking.
I swear, most people here don't act like consumers, they act like THEY are the ones managing Apple's books and defend every decision they make.
Comments
Yeah, but have you seen the files sizes on some of Apple's latest initiative: TextBooks?
Throw in a few high resolution games, some movies, music and, some iTextBooks and you're ****ed with 16GB.
Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?
Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.
Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.
However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.
Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computers?most of the apps never get opened.
As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.
Take a deeeeeep breath and relax. Tim and company have you covered. Large storage may be needed if this were an Android, but it's not... this device is magical.
When large storage is deemed necessary it's available: in those 32 and 64 GB versions. For users solely interested in something they'll use in a high speed WiFi environment and thus with Cloud access readily available the 16 might be all they ever need. So that's all they have to buy...
OK, guys... I give up!
You've convinced me...
The optimal size SSD for an entry iPad 3 is... 144 MB... er, ah... 24 GB.
Where are those BubbleMemories or those MagnetoRestrictive delay lines when we need them?
Most people I know don't put all the music they illegally torrented or downloaded from Limewire a decade ago. Most people I know don't store a crap load of videos. No one I know is keeping any, much less every iBookstore textbook on their iPad. Surely this is anecdotal, but using it for mail, Safari, some apps and reading books is the likely the most common usage.
Just to be clear, you call it rudimentary usage because acting like an elitist demanding something and then throwing a tantrum if reality don't match up with your fantasy is perfectly fine behaviour? Go with that¡
First of all don't condescend me with [sic] for autocorrect not working like it should on "the" and start being a bit more respectful to other posters here because you might be intelligent and have a solid knowledge when it comes to apple, but you are also incapable of conducting a discussion where you don't put whatever rationalization you have on apple across with scarce regard for what others are saying, making it immensely hard to impossible for people to converse with you.
Again in order to put your point across you have conveniently omitted to respond to two very lengthy posts of mine which I explained iPad usage in very much detail. You want to keep talking to your self, be my guest. I realise once again how pointless it is -to me at least- to have a conversion with you.
Again in order to put your point across you have conveniently omitted to respond to two very lengthy posts of mine which I explained iPad usage in very much detail. You want to keep talking to your self, be my guest. I realise once again how pointless it is -to me at least- to have a conversion with you.
Don't respond if you don't want to but know that if you make irrational, egocentric claims about what Apple should do because you want it I will call you out just as I would hope others would call me out for the same thing. In fact.... I demand it.
OK, guys... I give up!
You've convinced me...
The optimal size SSD for an entry iPad 3 is... 144 MB... er, ah... 24 GB.
Where are those BubbleMemories or those MagnetoRestrictive delay lines when we need them?
They have two chips in the iPad so they could do uneven building if there was a slight issue with cost or availability. Meaning they could go with a 64GB chip and 32GB for 96GB, assuming they can even use a 64GB modules. I know they use 1x16GB module as they tend to use the lower capacity models for the teardowns so perhaps to get the performance and reliability they can feasibly only go 2x32GB at this point. If that's the case I hope they'd at least consider 3 chips so they could increase capacity but it's not looking good at this point.
edit: Single 64GB chip in iPhone at about 20MBps so performance and reliability don't seem to be the big factors.
The problem with RAM is that it requires constant power to hold its data. Not so great for a device that runs off of a temporary battery. If Apple increases the RAM. It will be because of an extremely energy efficient form of RAM.
More RAM may take more power but not increasing it stunts platform growth.
The only real benefit of quad core processors. Is if the applications or the OS can really make use of all of four cores at any one particular time. Otherwise its over kill for the sake of marketing.
That is easy! The real trick is to get an app to leverage those cores regularly.
That is the state of Android. They are introducing quad core phones. But there really is nothing that can take much practical advantage of them.
The iPad isn't a phone, it is a computer, the Russians have said so!!! That being said you might be surprised at how well many apps could already use the extra cores. Apple has been on the threading warpath for sometime now.
I'm, unsuccessfully, trying to convince you to act rationally and stop saying you're justified in demanding a company make the exact product you want simply because you want it without any regard for how they make money, what their costs are, or their supply and demand.
They may very well offer a 128GB iPad. That would be great and I'd likely buy that model with the cellular card even if cost more than the current 64GB WiFi+3G model, but I'm hoping, your demanding. You can't see a difference because, well, I'm rational and you are you.
PS: It's great how you came to that $304 window for doubling the flash storage. I'm not even going to ask you are arrived at those upper and lower values... I'm sure it's all above board¡
Of course you are rational, because whatever the user demands, even if it's such a paltry demand as to add a few more gbs to their base model which they haven't done in two going to three years, so it can be barely functional based on the uses they promote for it and content, your response is I don't have a regard for their costs, supply and demand, yada, yada yada, because you have conclusively proven that all these "fundamental commerce laws" are preventing apple, and you ve also conclusivley proven that it is not a matter of higher margins, or them wanting to artificially cripple the low end device so the user will have to buy again in a year. It's very ironic the level of irrationality you are demnonstrating, simply because of your pathological compulsion to rationalise any decision apple makes in favour of apple.
More power is used grabbing data over a network again than storing it in RAM. And there are few applications that would use all 4 cores effectively (heck, most don't bother to use two because it's really not needed).
Actually I think you are a little off there many apps do put those cores to good use.
Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?
Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.
Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.
However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.
Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computers?most of the apps never get opened.
As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.
This argument reminds me of the ones I had back during my M.E. undergrad days when a few classmates would bring Thermo, Machine Design, DiffEq, Fluids, all together with them to the Student Union Building as if they were going to even go through it all. Then they'd complain about the weight of the textbooks.
I'd tell them to stop bringing books to lecture hall and if they were going to remain on campus to study often to rent a locker in the Student Gaming area and put all the textbooks in there. The smart ones figured that out quick. Cheap and allowed for a light backpack or sidepack.
Store the bulk of your textbooks on your Mac and in the Cloud.
This argument reminds me of the ones I had back during my M.E. undergrad days when a few classmates would bring Thermo, Machine Design, DiffEq, Fluids, all together with them to the Student Union Building as if they were going to even go through it all. Then they'd complain about the weight of the textbooks.
I'd tell them to stop bringing books to lecture hall and if they were going to remain on campus to study often to rent a locker in the Student Gaming area and put all the textbooks in there. The smart ones figured that out quick. Cheap and allowed for a light backpack or sidepack.
Store the bulk of your textbooks on your Mac and in the Cloud.
Damn this cloud, I would be still enjoying snow leopard hadn't I wished to be on it...
I could offer some worse names.
How about:
iPuddle 3
iPudding 3
iPotato 3
iPlop 3
...
Quick, now do a rumor with A6, 512MB RAM, and no LTE. Then LTE, A5X, and 1GB RAM. And every other possible freaking combination you can do in less than 24 hours.
Quick, Boy Wonder... To the Bat-Iterator!
Yes. Let's be furious at Apple for releasing a product that?
OH RIGHT, it's not out yet and no one can actually know anything about it.
Gods, it gets really old sometimes (this whole having to inform the uninformed).
Did you bother to look at the statement that I was commenting on?
Dead Space for the iPad is less than 450 MB. The iTunes U app is only 12.1 MB. And if I am not mistaken, the majority of the half million and more apps in the iTunes store they are less than 10 MB.
Understandably, data is another matter; many would say that it depends on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a lesser extent, the apps you want to put on it.
However, in my experience, you should base your needs on how much music, movies, photos, books, and to a greater extent, the apps you will listen to, watch, look at, read or actually use on it over a given time.
Like they say, most travelers overpack. Most of the clothes never get worn. Most of the books never get read. Most of the movies never get viewed. Just like our computers…most of the apps never get opened.
As for iTextBooks, like Harry Potter 7 at 2 MB, I doubt that you would need 16 GB to store every text book on nuclear medicine on an iPad that you would need to get a doctorate. But then why would one want or need to.
Yes, I saw what you were commenting on, but the point still stands. I'm looking at some of the popular games on the App Store right now:
Grand Theft Auto 3: 460 MB
Infinity Blade II: 940 MB
Rage 3D: 1.2 GB
Hell, that's nearly 3GB for just three games.
The average SD movie on iTunes is 1 to 2 GB. Throw in your other apps, music, pictures, etc and 16GB starts to get confining. Throw in the double resolution and higher resolution textures for games, and watch those file sizes start increasing.
And I said TextBooks, not regular iBooks. Here are the file sizes of the 10 featured TextBooks on the main page:
970 MB
2.35 GB
1.11 GB
2.79 GB
1.5 GB
929 MB
934 MB
1.26 GB
2.31 GB
1.22 GB
All I'm saying is that bumping up the base storage for the THIRD generation iPad to 32GB would give most people more breathing room and doesn't seem like too much to ask. I mean, give me a break. The highest capacity iPhone is 64GB and it's not nearly as capable as the iPad. To cripple the iPad to the same size limitation as the "inferior" iPhone with this generation seems unthinkable.
Hell, most of you people are acting like we're trying to stab your mother in the back by even suggesting the idea.
Safari is a prime example. In many cases more RAM would save power by reducing data transfers and save users money by reducing bandwidth usage.
Actually I think you are a little off there many apps do put those cores to good use.
As to your Safari comment...
When Kindle released the Fire they made a big to-do about their efficient browser that anticipated page requests, pre-fetched them, cached them on their servers, then downloaded multiple pages with a single request/response...
They quickly backed off this implementation when the users complained about the slowness...
I always thought that it sounded like a good idea, but that the poor performance was likely due to the low usage of the web by the Kindle Fires -- more Fires hitting web pages == more effective prediction and caching.
Back in the day when I did web development, most people used 64 Kb modems. Each page request, and each hidden request for and image, script, link, etc. involved a separate request/response turn around. Every turn around could take 1-2 seconds...
Therefore, it was very important to minimize these hidden requests in every web page -- a request for a single page could easily result is 20-30 request/response turnarounds.
I haven't done any web design for years, so I don't know if this problem (multiple request/response turn arounds per page) still exists... though, observing the way some pages load [slowly] I think the problem is still there -- but masked by much higher bandwidth.
If the latter is true, then there would be great benefit to the server pre-fetching pages (including all their hidden requests), caching them -- then downloading it in one one request/response turnaround...
With an efficient, active server caching anticipated page requests, the server could download and buffer anticipated pages along with the original page request...
Overall, if you have available RAM on the device -- you could access more data, faster while using significantly less bandwidth.
A by-product is that you could optionally eliminate all ads and tracking.
3 games, 2 textbooks or other rich media books, 4-5 music albums, 3-4 audiobooks, 1 movie (or two video podcast episodes), 10-20 apps, one magazine subscription and the 16gb iPad is almost full because as you rightly say 16gb is phone storage from 3 years ago not a post computer device's storage in 2012. It's as simple as that, and we are here debating the bleeding obvious alas...
If people want to rationalise, they can turn black to white, day to night...
3 games, 2 textbooks or other rich media books, 4-5 music albums, 3-4 audiobooks, 1 movie (or two video podcast episodes), 10-20 apps, one magazine subscription and the 16gb iPad is almost full because as you rightly say 16gb is phone storage from 3 years ago not a post computer device's storage in 2012. It's as simple as that, and we are here debating the bleeding obvious alas...
Exactly. It's like people are somehow OFFENDED that we even make the suggestion that in this day and age, more storage is probably going to be needed especially with a double rez screen and the apps that will come along with it.
And this age of 3GB limitations (AT&T) and capped data, this whole idea of streaming everything from iCloud isn't going to go very far either. And the iPad is supposed to be a post PC device that replaces the need for low-end notebooks or netbooks, yet I just keep hearing people talk about transferring data back and forth to their PCs or Macs in order to "conserve space".
That's the OLD way of thinking.
I swear, most people here don't act like consumers, they act like THEY are the ones managing Apple's books and defend every decision they make.
"One article at TheNextWeb weighed in at over 6 MB and required 342 HTTP requests.
Typical articles at The Verge take about 110 HTTP requests, and weigh about 500 KB."
Regarding TheNextWeb’s Shit-Ass Website