or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Purported 'iPad 3' rear panel measures 0.81mm thicker than iPad 2
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Purported 'iPad 3' rear panel measures 0.81mm thicker than iPad 2 - Page 2

post #41 of 75
Of course, while it may not be likely, the 3 could end up the same thickness as the 2. Why? Because the screen stands proud of the case. If they redesigned this so that the screen didn't stick out as far, then all could be the same.

Just a thought, not saying that it's happening.
post #42 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Of course, while it may not be likely, the 3 could end up the same thickness as the 2. Why? Because the screen stands proud of the case. If they redesigned this so that the screen didn't stick out as far, then all could be the same.

Just a thought, not saying that it's happening.

Why isn't it likely?

Doesn't each generation use an improved glass that's thinner than before?
post #43 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

I could have lived with 0.8mm thicker, but that extra 1/100th of a millimeter is a deal-breaker for me. I'll wait for iPad 4.

I'm with you on this. Jobs would have never let this get out the door... the end is near! Time to buy an Android, I hear they are up to version 2.3. All the bugs should be worked out by now.
post #44 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Why isn't it likely?

Doesn't each generation use an improved glass that's thinner than before?

Gorilla Glass 2 is 20% thinner than Gorilla Glass 1 so it's down to 0.8mm thick.

We don't know if that difference we're seeing is 0.2mm less than it would have been if not for GG2 which is supposed to be widely available in the next month or two.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #45 of 75
All hail the fatpad!

Seriously though good idea to curve the sides again to hold it more easily and release that gorgeous retina display already!

Any news on if the glass will be fused to the screen a la iPhone? That will make a hell of a lot of difference with screen glare and even better readability.
post #46 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by jlandd View Post

Same here. I'm always surprised that the weight of iPads doesn't come up more than it does. I'm a healthy mid sized male and I consider its weight a noticeable thing.

You should try toting around a late-2006 15" MBP for a while to build up your upper body strength.
post #47 of 75
With such small measurements you can get a better feel for what it means in percentage terms. 9% thicker. Probably only noticeable if you're really looking for it.

No big deal for me. I agree with earlier posters that weight is more significant. If it turns out 9% heavier I'll be disappointed.
post #48 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by primedetailer View Post

Hmmm - 25.4mm + 1". That would make the new Ipad 3 3/4" thick.

They needed the thickness for a floppy drive.
post #49 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

Not necessarily. The edge of the supposed new iPad tapers in further, this may have been a result of needing to make the device the same thickness at the same distance from the edge, so that it could be a little thicker overall, but still fit in a thinner dock connector. This would also place connectors at the exact same position/location, so that they could also fit into older iPad docks.

The iPad3 will fit, just use your back more when inserting.
post #50 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Well, thank you.

I was concerned that I was just pointing out something that was screamingly obvious to everyone, but I see I needn't have worried.

For all the metrically challenged out there, a Starbucks stirring stick is 6mm wide. A pencil is 7mm in diameter.

...and the iPad3 is apparently 95.0 mm.

I wonder if circus strongmen will be able to tear an iPad in two???
post #51 of 75
Did nobody notice that the measurements were for different iPads? An iPad WIFI versus an iPad wifi+3g. Also notice that they don't show in the graphic if the caliper is resting directly on the screen. It would be so easy to fake this graphic it's not even funny.
post #52 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Gorilla Glass 2 is 20% thinner than Gorilla Glass 1 so it's down to 0.8mm thick.

We don't know if that difference we're seeing is 0.2mm less than it would have been if not for GG2 which is supposed to be widely available in the next month or two.

According to this link I found, the iPad2 glass is 27% thinner than the iPad1 glass.

A series of stress tests show that Apples new iPad 2 has significantly stronger glass than its predecessor, even though its 27 percent thinner.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/03/ipad-2-glass/
post #53 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

According to this link I found, the iPad2 glass is 27% thinner than the iPad1 glass.

A series of stress tests show that Apples new iPad 2 has significantly stronger glass than its predecessor, even though its 27 percent thinner.

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2011/03/ipad-2-glass/

I don't understand the relevance to GG1 v GG2.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #54 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I don't understand the relevance to GG1 v GG2.

I was just wondering what the iPad 1 and the iPad 2 uses. Are they both Gorilla Glass or just one of them?
post #55 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by bjojade View Post

Did nobody notice that the measurements were for different iPads? An iPad WIFI versus an iPad wifi+3g. Also notice that they don't show in the graphic if the caliper is resting directly on the screen. It would be so easy to fake this graphic it's not even funny.

I agree. As long as they don't show the front side (the display/glass) of the iPad, then nobody can really trust these measurements.
post #56 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I was just wondering what the iPad 1 and the iPad 2 uses. Are they both Gorilla Glass or just one of them?

Ah. Yeah, I think they would both have to be in order to get a sheet of glass that large and thin to work. Note that by Gorilla Glass it may not necessarily be Corning's brand, it could be other alkali-aluminosilicate sheet glass though I think Corning is likely their supplier.

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #57 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

...small issue I know but it would be nice in some situations like camping in a small tent ... not that I'd be using it for that

Home made camping porn?
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 #58 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Why isn't it likely?

Doesn't each generation use an improved glass that's thinner than before?

I was thinking that they might decide to recess the panel a bit more. But they must have reasons why they don't.
post #59 of 75
With this article I think I will stop reading Apple Insider.

The accuracy of its copy is an embarrassment. Having the decimal point in the wrong place makes this iPad3 9.5cm thick. How can this not be noticed by even the briefest of proof reading? It's literally an order of magnitude out. The sheer volume of typographical errors is beyond excuse on here and they just don't seem to care. Such a simple thing that makes them look like complete amateurs.

Add to that that this is an entire article about 0.81mm and you can't help but find this tedious in the extreme.
post #60 of 75
Am I the only one who finds something fetishistic about the quality of attention paid to these products?

Go to any rubber, leather, corset, bondage, or other sexual fetish site and note the resemblances. I'd like to see AppleInsider run a well designed survey of how many iPad owners masturbate with the device before displaying porn on it.
post #61 of 75
OMG it's thicker! iPad is going backwards! Oh Noes! Apple is Doomed
post #62 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

And I also bet that Samsung will release some sort of shitty Android tablet a few months after the iPad 3 and they'll claim that it's 0.00201 mm thinner! Even if it has a bulge on the back like some of their phones, they'll still lie and claim that it's thinner.

I think Android fans are already declaring a resounding victory with this news.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rbryanh View Post

Am I the only one who finds something fetishistic about the quality of attention paid to these products?

Go to any rubber, leather, corset, bondage, or other sexual fetish site and note the resemblances. I'd like to see AppleInsider run a well designed survey of how many iPad owners masturbate with the device before displaying porn on it.

post #63 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

With this article I think I will stop reading Apple Insider.

The accuracy of its copy is an embarrassment. Having the decimal point in the wrong place makes this iPad3 9.5cm thick. How can this not be noticed by even the briefest of proof reading? It's literally an order of magnitude out. The sheer volume of typographical errors is beyond excuse on here and they just don't seem to care. Such a simple thing that makes them look like complete amateurs.

Add to that that this is an entire article about 0.81mm and you can't help but find this tedious in the extreme.


That's not AI's error. That the photo from the site where the info came from. Every other site that's reporting on this is using the same photo.
post #64 of 75
And not a single poop was given on that day.

I don't care, if it needs to be imperceptibly thicker to make room for more battery for the higher powered components thats fine by me.
post #65 of 75
I am a little embarrassed to admit that I owned the iPad original and now own the iPad2. But the iPad2 does HTML rendering noticeably quicker, and that is the only real reason that I upgraded.

I wonder if Apple surveyed owners and asked them what they thought left room for improvement.

I don't think that the resolution really needs to be improved. Yes, it will be noticeably sharper, and more beautiful to behold, but not by any huge margin. With the present pixel density, when you hold the iPad at arm length you are almost at that magical threshold where, if the resolution were any sharper, you would not be able to see the difference. Okay, maybe you have to hold it a little further than arm length for this to occur, and regardless it is true that at a more typical viewing distance that is less than a full arm length, the graininess is unmistakable. But the question is what price has to be paid for the improvement. Greater pixels implies greater processing power, which in turn implies a bigger battery and greater weight, or else shorter battery life. If we assume that battery life will be the same, then it is almost certainly going to be noticeably heavier. The question thus becomes whether the tradeoff is worth it, i.e., whether the penalty in increased weight is justified by the marginal improvement in sharpness. This question cannot be answered objectively, although I fully expect that the replies to this post will assert that the improvement in sharpness justifies the increased weight in a way that is absolute and not subjective. The question is however subjective, no matter who will assert otherwise. And although at this point no information has been released as to the amount by which the weight will increase, it seems somewhat likely that it will be a noticeable increase in weight, and that the first thing that most people will notice will be that increase in weight, and not the improvement in sharpness.

The increase in weight will of course exacerbate an issue that I regard as a noticeable, significant flaw of the iPad, that is rarely ever acknowledged here on anywhere else where it is verbotten to hint that anything that Apple makes is not perfect in every conceivable way (the reason for the continual product upgrades have nothing to do with imperfections or with profit made from selling the same people a new model every year or two, but have only to do with the fact that the definition of "perfect" continually changes...)

I'm beating around the bush. The issue with iPad design, that I regard as downright obvious notwithstanding that apparently no one else thinks similarly (...) is that it is not the least bit comfortable to hold in the hand, which fact is predominately due to the tapering of the edges.

If it were considerably thicker than it is, it would then make sense to taper the edges. But given the actual thickness, the only notable effect of the tapering is that it becomes less comfortable to hold. This is especially the situation at the four corners. The radius of curvature of the corners is probably about ideal and not a problem in and of itself, but the corners are where the edge tapering yields the sharpest point of the case in three dimensions. When you hold the iPad in your hands, it is not so easy to grasp, the effect of which is that habitually my hands find themselves to the two lower corners, and experience discomfort. I would stop short of saying that it is painful, but it borders on painful and is certainly not the least bit comfortable. It becomes necessary to place it in your lap or on a table. It is not a hand-held device, and it might not have been intended to be held in the hand, but the fact is that the nature of the device is that it is continually being handled, i.e., picked up and set down, and that, owing to the edge tapering, it is not the least bit comfortable to handle.

Now, it goes without saying that virtually all the replies to this will be from people who will assert in a strong, absolute manner that there is nothing the least bit uncomfortable about handling the iPad. But of course the people who visit this site and similar sites practically worship Apple and take strong exception to anyone who offers even the slightest hint that anything that Apple ever made was not the pinnacle of perfection, and would never have been improved upon were it not for the fact that perfection is a moving target. This is what people who reply to this will assert, and they will do so with very strong wording, typically of the way that teenagers and people of college age express their opinions. But the fact remains that the iPad is not comfortable to handle. The fact remains that it borders on being painful.

The fact remains that from a functional standpoint, the iPad would be _vastly_ better if the edges were very slightly rounded instead of tapered, i.e., if the rear surface were flat and all of the resulting 90-degree corners (there would be twelve in total) were rounded off slightly. From a purely functional standpoint, this could not be more obvious to me. And notwithstanding that people here will be quick to assert otherwise, the truth of the matter is that the rationale for the edge tapering is singular and counter-functional: it is purely for visual aesthetics, i.e., to make the iPad appear more slender to the eye. To achieve this superficial effect, a huge penalty has been paid in functionality. But this should be no surprise, because this has been the way with Apple products for a long time, and got increasingly worse with each new iteration. This is apparent almost throughout the product line. Perhaps there are some advantages of the mouse with the sharp edges at the sides. Perhaps, but the aluminum-slab keyboards are unmitigated garbage, no matter how many people on this site and other similar sites will quickly argue otherwise. Uh-oh, I never should have brought up the keyboards. Back to the iPad. A couple of months ago, I played for a little while with the Kindle Fire. Now, the comparison is not entirely fair because it is much smaller and naturally lighter as a result of being smaller, but allowing for that difference, the difference in comfort was like night and day.

The design of the iPad is such that it is assured to be just about as uncomfortable to handle as it could be without people everywhere asking the question that is obvious: Why is this thing so damned uncomfortable to hold? It IS uncomfortable to hold. In fact, it is VERY uncomfortable to hold. It is obvious to me that there is some sort of very peculiar social phenomenon occurring here, where people flock to a product for reasons that have very much to do with visual aesthetics, and then pretend not to notice the functional tradeoffs that are made, and behave in an outwardly aggressive manner toward people who dare to point out the functional flaws. This behavior becomes immediately apparent whenever anyone talks about the fact that the aluminum slab keyboards are unmitigated garbage (uh-oh, I mentioned the keyboards again), and good luck to anyone with the audacity to point out that the tapered edges of the iPad are probably the single most dysfunctional design element that, within any semblance of reason, could occur without being the laughing stock of sane people everywhere.
post #66 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

And I also bet that Samsung will release some sort of shitty Android tablet a few months after the iPad 3 and they'll claim that it's 0.00201 mm thinner! Even if it has a bulge on the back like some of their phones, they'll still lie and claim that it's thinner.

That is no longer required, or Samsung at least. Galaxy Tab still need to ship with fully working Jellybean, keep voice call function without Messenger App or Skype (public wifi on this side of Pacific is not ready for prime time), better camera, micro-SD slot, better camera and undercut iPad by at least 15%

That was the playbook of Galaxy 8 and 10.1 back in 2011, and that plan gave Samsung an Asian beachhead it still keeps today. So why not do it again?
post #67 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I was thinking that they might decide to recess the panel a bit more. But they must have reasons why they don't.

Or it simply cannot be made any thinner than it is now without new manufacturing technique.

After all, Macbbok can't be made as thin as they are now with white plastic, and we have to wait until unibody was introduced. I am expecting the same reason; tech wasn't there when they design it.
post #68 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That's not AI's error. That the photo from the site where the info came from. Every other site that's reporting on this is using the same photo.

Fair enough, but it's not pointed out in the article. If I was using such a terrible source image, I'd make sure to distance myself from the error.
post #69 of 75
It may be only 0.81mm but multiply that by the projected sales of 20 million and that adds up to quite a sizeable dimension:- 3.8km!
post #70 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fairthrope View Post

That is no longer required, or Samsung at least. Galaxy Tab still need to ship with fully working Jellybean, keep voice call function without Messenger App or Skype (public wifi on this side of Pacific is not ready for prime time), better camera, micro-SD slot, better camera and undercut iPad by at least 15%

That was the playbook of Galaxy 8 and 10.1 back in 2011, and that plan gave Samsung an Asian beachhead it still keeps today. So why not do it again?

Because Samsung just admitted that they weren't having success with tablet sales. So, likely their strategy isn't working, and they have to try something else.
post #71 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

Fair enough, but it's not pointed out in the article. If I was using such a terrible source image, I'd make sure to distance myself from the error.

It is pointed out in the article. It's stated that:

Quote:
The purported iPad 3 component was measured with a digital vernier caliper, showing that it is 9.50mm thick. That's 0.81mm thicker than the rear panel for the iPad 2, which measures 8.69mm, according to an image discovered by Apple.pro.

And the photo is there in the article.
post #72 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It is pointed out in the article. It's stated that:

And the photo is there in the article.

'which measures 8.69mm, according to an image discovered by Apple.pro.'

The error is not pointed out. We can see the readout for ourselves in the image and spot the error for ourselves, but the error is not pointed out.
post #73 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave2012 View Post

It may be only 0.81mm but multiply that by the projected sales of 20 million and that adds up to quite a sizeable dimension:- 3.8km!

Should be 50 million iPad 3s by the end of 2012
post #74 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jonamac View Post

'which measures 8.69mm, according to an image discovered by Apple.pro.'

The error is not pointed out. We can see the readout for ourselves in the image and spot the error for ourselves, but the error is not pointed out.

Seriously, I know people like to find things that they can post about, but this isn't worth it. Everyone knows that the numbers are wrong from just looking at it.

I think I quoted this from the article in an earlier response to you, but maybe not all of it.

Quote:
The purported iPad 3 component was measured with a digital vernier caliper, showing that it is 9.50mm thick. That's 0.81mm thicker than the rear panel for the iPad 2, which measures 8.69mm, according to an image discovered by Apple.pro.

Are you sure you're actually reading the article rather than just looking at the picture? First you think it's AI's own picture, and now you think they don't have the proper numbers in the article.

Ok, already. Enough.
post #75 of 75
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Seriously, I know people like to find things that they can post about, but this isn't worth it. Everyone knows that the numbers are wrong from just looking at it.

I think I quoted this from the article in an earlier response to you, but maybe not all of it.

Are you sure you're actually reading the article rather than just looking at the picture? First you think it's AI's own picture, and now you think they don't have the proper numbers in the article.

Ok, already. Enough.

I can see why you might find this pedantic, but AI's copy proofing is ineffably bad. People cut you less slack when you make a habit of writing poor copy.

Straw and camels' backs and all that.

I think it was a glaring error in the photograph and it should have been explicitly pointed out. That's just good journalism IMO.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › Purported 'iPad 3' rear panel measures 0.81mm thicker than iPad 2