or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Live teardown of Apple's iPad 2 currently underway
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Live teardown of Apple's iPad 2 currently underway

post #1 of 69
Thread Starter 
Immediately after Apple's release of the iPad 2 on Friday, iFixit began a teardown of Apple's iPad 2, discovering a slight increase in battery capacity compared to the original iPad and confirming that the tablet has 512MB of RAM.

iFixit gave Apple's just-released iPad 2 a repairability score of 4 out of 10 after completing its teardown on Friday. According to the report, the touchscreen tablet contains only standard Phillips screws, while the battery is "very securely" stuck down to the rear case.

The Wi-Fi version of the iPad 2 sports a new model number: A1395, compared to a model number of A1219 for the original Wi-Fi iPad and A1337 for the original iPad 3G. iFixit confirmed via software that the tablet has 512MB of RAM.

Unlike the original iPad, which iFixit described as having "gorgeous symmetry," the iPad 2 requires a heat gun in order to remove the front panel, as Apple has opted to glue the panel in place this time around instead of using clips.



The iPad 2's Li-Ion Polymer battery, which is made up of three cells, is rated at 3.8 volts, 25 watt-hours, slightly more than the original iPad's rating of 3.75 volts, 24.8 watt-hours. As with the original iPad, Apple claims "up to 10 hours" of battery life on the iPad 2.



According to the teardown, the logic board of the tablet contains the Apple 1GHz A5 Processor (APL0498), Toshiba NAND Flash, and additional chips from Apple and Texas Instruments.

"The A5 processor has manufacture dates of late January and mid-February 2011," the report noted. "Production was clearly ramping up through the last minute."



iFixit discovered that Apple has again tapped Broadcom for several of the iPad 2's touch controller chips, as well as a "Wi-Fi/Bluetooth/FM tuner combo chip" that powers the Wi-Fi board. Also, the tablet's new gyroscope is labeled AGD8 2103.

The report also discovered that the iPad 2 LCD component is 2.4 mm thick, while the glass panel is 62 mm thick. By comparison, the original iPad employed a 3.2 mm thick LCD and .85 mm thick glass panel.

Apple's launch of the iPad 2 at 5 p.m. Friday drew long lines (1, 2), despite reports that increased distribution outlets could shorten wait times. Within hours of opening up online orders for the tablet early Friday morning, Apple began quoting shipping estimates of "2-3 weeks."

Analysts have predicted Apple could sell as many as 1 million iPad 2 units this weekend, though average estimates are closer to 500,000.

For more details, see the detailed step-by-step teardown at iFixit.
post #2 of 69
Wow that came quicker than I expected !
post #3 of 69
That's how they made it so thin compared to the first. The spread the battery out over 3 segments, as opposed to two - as before. I prefer the outside of these products
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of a rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #4 of 69
I'm curious to find out if the CPU is Cortex-A9 based, or is just an old dual core Cortex-A8.
post #5 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

That's how they made it so thin compared to the first. The spread the battery out over 3 segments, as opposed to two - as before. I prefer the outside of these products

We knew this from the event a week and a half ago.
post #6 of 69
Has the RAM been finally confirmed? 512MB?
post #7 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by sophace View Post

Has the RAM been finally confirmed? 512MB?

Yes, that was confirmed the day it was announced.
post #8 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Market_Player View Post

Wow that came quicker than I expected !

blah blah blah...that's what she said....blah blah blah
post #9 of 69
Man, I used to take everything I could apart when I was a kid. It just wouldn't be as much fun nowadays. Aside from so many things being glued together instead of screwed (although snapped is just as bad if you don't know where the snaps are), there's just nothing inside stuff any more!
post #10 of 69
Iapd managed to replace my MacBook 13 while I am at home. I still need the power for work and school, but at home I really don't need my MacBook anymore. With iMovie and iWork I think the iPad is well worth the money.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #11 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Man, I used to take everything I could apart when I was a kid. It just wouldn't be as much fun nowadays. Aside from so many things being glued together instead of screwed (although snapped is just as bad if you don't know where the snaps are), there's just nothing inside stuff any more!

It's surely harder to see the stuff but there is a lot more inside with each new gadget evolution.
post #12 of 69
It's actually a tiny bit smaller:

iPad 1: 24.8 Watt-hours/3.75V = 6.61 Amp-hours
iPad 2: 25 Watt-hours/3.8V = 6.58 Amp-hours

Edit: the 2nd Apple chip is in a power supply section, and may be a custom voltage regulator or some kind of system controller. The printed circuit board looks like it's been built to a price point. For example, it does not appear use the HDI technique that you see in their iPhones and Macbooks. It looks downright cheap, actually. This could mean many things (or none, since this is just speculation):

- Apple really has to work hard to keep the cost down
- Apple's preparing for a price war
- It's going to be hard for non-Apple tablet makers to match Apple's prices
post #13 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

It's actually a tiny bit smaller:

iPad 1: 24.8 Watt-hours/3.75V = 6.61 Amp-hours
iPad 2: 25 Watt-hours/3.8V = 6.58 Amp-hours

Total Power is less [barely] but are the physical dimensions of the iPad 2's batteries combined area and/or volume larger in the new set up?
post #14 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Total Power is less [barely] but are the physical dimensions of the iPad 2's batteries combined area and/or volume larger in the new set up?

The new battery holds 25 W-h90,000 Joulesof energy. That's more than the old one (by a tiny bit). Who cares about amp-hours? The device will draw as much current as it needs. Drives me crazy on car batteriesso many "Amp-hours"why are you telling me this? How much energy does it hold?
post #15 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

Man, I used to take everything I could apart when I was a kid. It just wouldn't be as much fun nowadays. Aside from so many things being glued together instead of screwed (although snapped is just as bad if you don't know where the snaps are), there's just nothing inside stuff any more!

Please don't tell me you'll have to move up to small animals... then humans...

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #16 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu View Post

I'm curious to find out if the CPU is Cortex-A9 based, or is just an old dual core Cortex-A8.

There is NO such thing as a dual core Cortex A8. ARM never designed a multi-core version of Cortex A8.

Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

It's actually a tiny bit smaller:

iPad 1: 24.8 Watt-hours/3.75V = 6.61 Amp-hours
iPad 2: 25 Watt-hours/3.8V = 6.58 Amp-hours

Those are rounded-off numbers. The teardown showed that the battery is listed on the label as 6930mah, even though the "math" would have been 6579mah.

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-...eardown/5071/1

It also mean that the "math" on the original ipad that came up with 6610mah may be understated.
post #17 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

The new battery holds 25 W-h90,000 Joulesof energy. That's more than the old one (by a tiny bit). Who cares about amp-hours? The device will draw as much current as it needs. Drives me crazy on car batteriesso many "Amp-hours"why are you telling me this? How much energy does it hold?

Amp-hours is important because batteries are, in theory, constant voltage sources, so they need to supply the current necessary to maintain their output voltage. The Amp-hour rating gives you a way to compare that. The new battery may have more energy, but if it's run at a higher voltage, it has less runtime.
post #18 of 69
However it ought to make for a more rugged device. I suspect the day will quickly come when repairing stuff like this is impossible.
post #19 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by A Y View Post

Amp-hours is important because batteries are, in theory, constant voltage sources, so they need to supply the current necessary to maintain their output voltage. The Amp-hour rating gives you a way to compare that. The new battery may have more energy, but if it's run at a higher voltage, it has less runtime.

But they are all "rounded off" --- can't rely on them if the math said 6579mah and it's listed as 6930. That's a 5% difference.

Usually it's listed the other way around. For example, the batteries may be spec'ed to be 1000mah +/- 5% --- and you list the battery as 950mah so that you don't get sued by consumers.
post #20 of 69
A whole 0.2 wH? iFixit also states this might just be rounding up.

Quote:
Also listed on the battery is a capacity of 6930 mAh. Since mAh = watt-hours / volts * 1000, converting using the above numbers yields 25 / 3.8 * 1000 = 6,579. It looks like there might be some rounding going on here

In any case, not really article worthy...Or worthy of me writing this. Touché
post #21 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is NO such thing as a dual core Cortex A8. ARM never designed a multi-core version of Cortex A8.
.

Thanks for writing that, it has been the most ridiculous bit of FUD floating about the interwebs.
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
you only have freedom in choice when you know you have no choice
Reply
post #22 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Glued together is never good from a repairability standpoint.
__________________________________________________ __

However it ought to make for a more rugged device. I suspect the day will quickly come when repairing stuff like this is impossible.

It seems like the only things I take apart any more are remote controls—when the buttons quit working you can clean the contact pads with rubbing alcohol and they're as good as new. Maybe if they were glued together a heat gun would work, but nowadays they're snapped—and I have no idea where the snaps are. I always wind up breaking a couple, so I have to tape the thing back together. Bring back screws—please!
post #23 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by tipoo View Post

A whole 0.2 wH? iFixit also states this might just be rounding up.

In any case, not really article worthy...Or worthy of me writing this. Touché

Or the news worthy thing may be that the famed secret Apple battery technology --- may be just a marketing hype. That you are getting amazing battery life because Apple put in a much better battery, but under-reporting their actual capacity.
post #24 of 69
Appleinsider: "iFixit gave Apple's just-released iPad 2 a repairability score of 6 out of 10 after completing its teardown on Friday."


iPad 2 Repairability Score - 4 out of 10 (10 is easiest to repair)

http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-...eardown/5071/4
post #25 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac-sochist View Post

The new battery holds 25 W-h90,000 Joulesof energy. That's more than the old one (by a tiny bit). Who cares about amp-hours? The device will draw as much current as it needs. Drives me crazy on car batteriesso many "Amp-hours"why are you telling me this? How much energy does it hold?

To keep it clear in your mind when trying to decipher what a batteries rating means try this.
Volts= how much work that the battery can provide at a given moment.
Amps=how long it can do that work.
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
Crying? No, I am not crying. I am sweating through my eyes.
Reply
post #26 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Or the news worthy thing may be that the famed secret Apple battery technology --- may be just a marketing hype. That you are getting amazing battery life because Apple put in a much better battery, but under-reporting their actual capacity.

Its there power management that they designed more efficiency, not the battery cell composition themselves.
post #27 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

Its there power management that they designed more efficiency, not the battery cell composition themselves.

No, Apple advertises their advanced battery chemistry.

http://www.apple.com/batteries/notebooks.html

There is no advanced battery chemistry --- they just under-reported the true capacity of the battery.
post #28 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

No, Apple advertises their advanced battery chemistry.

http://www.apple.com/batteries/notebooks.html

There is no advanced battery chemistry --- they just under-reported the true capacity of the battery.

1) That is a page pertaining to notebooks, not the iPad.

2) It says the battery uses advanced battery chemistry; it does not state that they use any proprietary Apple chemistry.

3) Apple hasn't reported the capacity of the battery. The capacity is written on the battery itself, printed by the manufacturer of the battery (not Apple) and only visible to someone disassembling the product. It is not intended for the public to ever be aware of the battery's capacity.
post #29 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

1) That is a page pertaining to notebooks, not the iPad.

2) It says the battery uses advanced battery chemistry; it does not state that they use any proprietary Apple chemistry.

3) Apple hasn't reported the capacity of the battery. The capacity is written on the battery itself, printed by the manufacturer of the battery (not Apple) and only visible to someone disassembling the product. It is not intended for the public to ever be aware of the battery's capacity.

Take out the AA batteries from your tv remote control, it will say something like 2000mah.

Since the beginning of time, batteries have been advertised based on mah.

ANYTIME a company uses a non-standard way to describe their products --- watch out. Apple is the only company to list their battery based on watts.

Consumers can't sue Apple because Apple is actually giving you MORE battery than they advertise. But the "secret" battery life technology --- nothing but marketing hype.
post #30 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Take out the AA batteries from your tv remote control, it will say something like 2000mah.

Since the beginning of time, batteries have been advertised based on mah.

ANYTIME a company uses a non-standard way to describe their products --- watch out. Apple is the only company to list their battery based on watts.

Consumers can't sue Apple because Apple is actually giving you MORE battery than they advertise. But the "secret" battery life technology --- nothing but marketing hype.

If only there was a way to determine mAh from Watts and Voltage. Hopefully one day we'll possess the math to figure it out.

Oh, and let's not forget that Apple is the company that lists realistic battery times for realistic usage and actually lists the audio, video, Internet for WiFi, internet for 3G, and talk time (for the iPhone). Show me a single other CE device that is that detailed or accurate.
post #31 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Take out the AA batteries from your tv remote control, it will say something like 2000mah.

Since the beginning of time, batteries have been advertised based on mah.

ANYTIME a company uses a non-standard way to describe their products --- watch out. Apple is the only company to list their battery based on watts.

Consumers can't sue Apple because Apple is actually giving you MORE battery than they advertise. But the "secret" battery life technology --- nothing but marketing hype.

The batteries in a device like the iPad are an order of magnitude larger. Comparing them to an AA battery in a remote is like comparing a lawnmower to a Humvee. Apple use a power rating that is perfectly understandable. I don't see why you have a gripe about this.

Why would anyone want to sue Apple for providing them with more battery capacity than they promised? Is this even the case?

You have again made the mistake of assuming that any battery technology Apple may be proud of is in the battery itself. Apple is proud of its power management. It doesn't make the batteries.

You seem to be determined to believe Apple is misleading people by hyping up some battery chemistry technology that doesn't exist. It has never made any such claims about its battery chemistry. Drop the cynicism; it's totally unfounded here.
post #32 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Logisticaldron View Post

If only there was a way to determine mAh from Watts and Voltage. Hopefully one day we'll possess the math to figure it out.

Oh, and let's not forget that Apple is the company that lists realistic battery times for realistic usage and actually lists the audio, video, Internet for WiFi, internet for 3G, and talk time (for the iPhone). Show me a single other CE device that is that detailed or accurate.

Oh there is a way to do the math --- but Apple rounded off those watt figures so that you can't do the math accurately.

Nobody else lists battery life individually by tasks --- because no human being just use their device only for video, or only for audio or only for internet.

The emperor has no clothes. Apple just give you a bigger battery than they advertise --- which means that you as a consumer can't sue them (because you can only sue them for giving you something less than advertised).
post #33 of 69
I suspect Apple does this for competitive reasons. Apple isn't going to brag about how it manages to get the battery life it gets. That is one of Apple's competitive advantages. Further, consumers aren't meant to see the innards of the device.

Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Since the beginning of time, batteries have been advertised based on mah.

ANYTIME a company uses a non-standard way to describe their products --- watch out. Apple is the only company to list their battery based on watts.

Consumers can't sue Apple because Apple is actually giving you MORE battery than they advertise. But the "secret" battery life technology --- nothing but marketing hype.
post #34 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

The batteries in a device like the iPad are an order of magnitude larger. Comparing them to an AA battery in a remote is like comparing a lawnmower to a Humvee. Apple use a power rating that is perfectly understandable. I don't see why you have a gripe about this.

Why would anyone want to sue Apple for providing them with more battery capacity than they promised? Is this even the case?

You have again made the mistake of assuming that any battery technology Apple may be proud of is in the battery itself. Apple is proud of its power management. It doesn't make the batteries.

You seem to be determined to believe Apple is misleading people by hyping up some battery chemistry technology that doesn't exist. It has never made any such claims about its battery chemistry. Drop the cynicism; it's totally unfounded here.

Batteries of all kinds use mah ratings. Nobody else list their laptop batteries, or tablet batteries or feature phone batteries or smartphone batteries by watts.

The battery has a Apple parts number. Don't care who makes it --- it's an apple's part.

The so-called power management --- Apple give you a bigger battery than they advertise, gives you fast-task switching and no flash enabled browser.
post #35 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Oh there is a way to do the math --- but Apple rounded off those watt figures so that you can't do the math accurately.

Nobody else lists battery life individually by tasks --- because no human being just use their device only for video, or only for audio or only for internet.

The emperor has no clothes. Apple just give you a bigger battery than they advertise --- which means that you as a consumer can't sue them (because you can only sue them for giving you something less than advertised).

He was being sarcastic. We know the maths is simple.

Your second paragraph has no point to it.

Why would anyone sue someone for giving them more than they advertised? Your mentality is baffling.
post #36 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

I suspect Apple does this for competitive reasons. Apple isn't going to brag about how it manages to get the battery life it gets. That is one of Apple's competitive advantages. Further, consumers aren't meant to see the innards of the device.

But there is nothing to brag about. They just give you a bigger battery than advertised.

A million different kind of batteries from cell phones, to smartphones, to laptops, to tablets, to my AA batteries inside my tv remote control --- all are listed by mah ratings.

To a consumer, ANYTIME some company gives you a NON-STANDARD way to describe a product --- that raises alarm bells. Simple as that.
post #37 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Batteries of all kinds use mah ratings. Nobody else list their laptop batteries, or tablet batteries or feature phone batteries or smartphone batteries by watts.

The battery has a Apple parts number. Don't care who makes it --- it's an apple's part.

The so-called power management --- Apple give you a bigger battery than they advertise, gives you fast-task switching and no flash enabled browser.

Dell list their batteries in the same way. Copied and pasted from Dell website '6-cell 48 WHr Li-Ion Battery' on the first laptop I clicked on. HP, Acer and Toshiba only state the number of cells in the battery, they don't even provide an empirical value of capacity.

For the love of all things holy, no mobile version of Adobe Flash currently ships. Ask Motorola.
post #38 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

But there is nothing to brag about. They just give you a bigger battery than advertised.

A million different kind of batteries from cell phones, to smartphones, to laptops, to tablets, to my AA batteries inside my tv remote control --- all are listed by mah ratings.

To a consumer, ANYTIME some company gives you a NON-STANDARD way to describe a product --- that raises alarm bells. Simple as that.

Again, '6-cell 48 WHr Li-Ion Battery' - Dell.

Stop spouting nonsense now.
post #39 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

Why would anyone sue someone for giving them more than they advertised? Your mentality is baffling.

There is nothing baffling. Apple found a LEGAL yet misleading way to advertise their supposed battery life advantage. Much like how Verizon found a LEGAL yet misleading way to advertise all their 3G territories --- that covers more cows than humans in the midwest.
post #40 of 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

There is nothing baffling. Apple found a LEGAL yet misleading way to advertise their supposed battery life advantage. Much like how Verizon found a LEGAL yet misleading way to advertise all their 3G territories --- that covers more cows than humans in the midwest.

You're being silly now. Apple has never claimed anything of the iPad's battery. It has only ever stated that the battery life of the product is remarkable, which is universally agreed.

Verizon cooked the statistics, Apple just states a fact. The iPad lasts 10 hours. It doesn't claim that you get some space-aged technology that makes its batteries better than everyone else's. It just states the iPad lasts 10 hours.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Live teardown of Apple's iPad 2 currently underway