or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Reviewers confirm 4th-gen iPad is merely an incremental refresh
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Reviewers confirm 4th-gen iPad is merely an incremental refresh - Page 3

post #81 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland View Post

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hoss the Dog View Post

The thought crossed my mind, is Apple moving to a new annular "tick tock" product cycle with the iPad.  March/April 2013 for the new iPad/iPad Mini anyone?

 

 

No, I believe the iPad has moved to the iPod (fall) schedule.

 

me thinks a 6 month schedule may be in the offing for the iPad.    iPhone... no...  just because of the massive rollouts for countries/carriers.

 

 

The iPad, however competes in a different space, and has now got two major markets to address that the phone doesn't have as much play/sway in

- Business

- Education

 

And therefore, I think there will be 'tocks'   released after every major OS upgrade in parallel with the iPhone x+1 release.   The Ticks will be major functional releases in the spring timeframe to support the Mar-July corporate buy periods.

 

 

Minimally, my guess is the iPad Mini will get an RD in this spring (and the current getting a price drop to $249 for an 'entry level' iPad), and the iPad2 will be retired (either an iPad 3 with Lightning, or another 'tick' will occur with the iPad, and the current retina iPad will drop... making all iPads Lightning.

post #82 of 116
Retina made the performance of iPad 3 be slightly less than iPad 2. I sold my iPad 3 to but the new one IMHO now the iPad 4 has the power to really drive the screen and that's why iPad 3 is discontinued. Basiclly the hardware is in balance. Plus a discontinued iPad 3 will be worth less than the iPad mini by march...

By the way in the future iPad 3 might only run iPad 2 and iPad mini quality games and not the iPad 4 high res games...
post #83 of 116
And the iOS chief being fired means to me that iOS 7 will get a big needed upgrade finally so will Siri. Johnny Ive realm now...
post #84 of 116

The only thing the Nexus 10 will get that I wish the iPad had is the multi-user support in 4.2.

post #85 of 116
I'm so sick of the tech media's expectaions and judgement about new products based on specs tunnel vision. Who cares if its incremental or major? Where's the line drawn between them? This subjective nit picking is so boring. The new ipad is what it is. People will buy it and love it, incremental or not.

Get a job.
post #86 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet… 

 

And all people can do is whine.

Because they replaced the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet long before they actually needed to and long before people expected.

Most early adopters of the iPad3 had their one for a touch over 6 months before their resale value was seriously affected with this minor update.

post #87 of 116
I always thought that Apple's old approach of introducing new products at MacWorld in early January was really, really dumb. Just after a surge of Christmas sales, and then you bring out new products just after Christmas. I would be mad as heck if I had just received a new Apple goodie for Christmas, only to have a newer version introduced two weeks later. Much better to bring out new products just *before* Christmas, as long as you can deliver to meet demand.
post #88 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

The only thing the Nexus 10 will get that I wish the iPad had is the multi-user support in 4.2.

I agree with that. Multi-user support would be nice. I would prefer, however, that it be possible to turn it off.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Because they replaced the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet long before they actually needed to and long before people expected.
Most early adopters of the iPad3 had their one for a touch over 6 months before their resale value was seriously affected with this minor update.

So what? Do you expect that your product is going to remain the leader forever? Or even for any specific time? Did your iPad 3 suddenly become slower or lose features? If not, why do you feel that you got ripped off? You got exactly what you paid for and it's still exactly what you paid for.

As for "before they needed to", you can't have it both ways. Some people are whining that Apple delays too long in introducing new technologies and others complain that they introduce them too fast. What should they do? They felt that they could offer a significantly better product without changing the price and they did so. That's a positive for consumers.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #89 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Because they replaced the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet long before they actually needed to and long before people expected.

Most early adopters of the iPad3 had their one for a touch over 6 months before their resale value was seriously affected with this minor update.

 

A. Your resale value ought not be Apple's concern.

 

B. If Apple goes a year between updates, certain people claim it's, "too long between updates, competitors are updating much more frequently." (Ignoring the fact that most of the "competitors" updates are much less than an "incremental refresh".) If they update every 6 months, we see equally ridiculous complaints like yours. One might infer that 9 months would be the perfect medium, but then people would probably complain about something else, like, "Apple's updates always come out in a different season." So, timing updates to attempt to "please customers" is a fools game. Releasing updates when they are ready, which is Apple's game across their product lines, is the only strategy that makes sense, for Apple and its customers.

post #90 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

The greater question is how developers will handle creating apps that specifically take advantage of the A6X's 'power' when Apple will still have devices running on the older A5, A5X, and A6 SoCs?

The greater answer is: A lot easier than it is for developers do for the 100+ different android phones, screen sizes, processors, GPUs, ram, accelerometers, etc, etc, etc, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet… 

 

And all people can do is whine.

Ya- no need to whine- It's faster.  If they didn't release it, then they would have released it in the spring with the exact same specs we have now.  You get it earlier... and you're whining?

 

That said- I wouldn't buy it because I would assume they refresh it around May/June of next year to look more like the iPhone 5 and iPad Mini.  It's a shame they didn't do that this time- but I'm sure their aluminum beveling machinery was maxed to capacity.  Look forward to the prettier iPad- it just looks outdated next to the other iOS devices (and yet 2 months ago before any of the new ones were announced- it looked cutting edge and the prettiest tablet on the market).

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #91 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Evilution View Post

Because they replaced the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet long before they actually needed to and long before people expected.

Most early adopters of the iPad3 had their one for a touch over 6 months before their resale value was seriously affected with this minor update.

 

You'd rather we go back to the 1990s when Intel doled out processor spec bumps in 33Mhz increments so they could milk the market S-L-O-W-L-Y? Oh look, here comes AMD with an air-cooled 1Ghz Athlon. Oops. Or Intel's plan to keep selling 32-bit chips because "the desktop isn't ready for 64-bit" and here comes AMD with a 64-bit x86 chip. Oops. You'd rather we do this? The A6X is here, now. You want Apple to wait until March 2013 to ship it?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #92 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cash907 View Post

 

Well, the screen of the Nexus 10 IS better, by a not slim margin, and there is a good chance it's faster too, which will show when both are finally benchmarked. As for the last point, most versatile, Android is largely more open and adaptable then iOS, while iOS has more apps currently, so one could argue it both ways.

 

I find it interesting that AI hasn't said word one about the Nexus 10, or the Nexus 4, for that matter, nor anything about the spec and price bumped 7. I know it's a big week for Apple, but pretending like nothing has happened with the competition is strange for this site.

I don't understand your logic. It doesn't matter if a tablet has a better screen, is faster and is more open when there are very few apps available and all of the exciting app development is happening on a different platform. Google can sell a transparent tablet made of diamonds for only $399 but it won't sell because you can't enjoy any good apps on that platform, or the rest of Apple's superior ecosystem. With Apple, you aren't just buying the hardware - you are also buying a robust ecosystem.

post #93 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Siri is pre-beta software, two years after the launch. I am not sure what Jonny can do about it.
 

 

Siri is not Jonny's problem, it's Eddie Cue's. Read much?

post #94 of 116
Originally Posted by igriv View Post
"Most versatile port on a tablet"? In what way is it more versatile than the 30pin port?

 

Lighting is probably just a modified Thunderbolt. That means that unlike Dock Connector, it'll probably be able to connect via Thunderbolt and at Thunderbolt speeds (yes, yes, NAND r/w…), as well as all the other ports for which it already has accessories.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #95 of 116
Originally Posted by igriv View Post
You are an optimist…

 

Now I know I'm doing something wrong. lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #96 of 116

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Jeesh...

Arguing over which tablet has the fastest processor and best display, and making believe it's factual, when neither are in users hands yet and one (the Nexus10) not even available for detailed review for another few days. Someone's not sharing their time machine with the rest of us.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

 

Already have the iPad to judge the display… 

But not the Nexus 10- that's Gator's point.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The Mini is in people's hands. Read the reviews.
The specs of the Nexus 10 are available - and they don't come close to the claims made by the troll I was responding to.

We're not talking about the Mini- we're talking about the iPad 4.  But it's typical for you to just change arguments and topics and make up stuff to- key word- try to be right... which you clearly aren't. 

 

Gator isn't claiming one is better or the other until he can actually see products that no one has been able to compare yet.  You're just as much of a troll as the Android guy is- just opposite ends of the spectrum- you have no data and no experience, and yet you speak as if you're an authority.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #97 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drealoth View Post

Alright, by no means am I disappointed in the iPad Mini or the iPad, but I think this is a pretty uncharacteristic refresh for the company.


For the company when Steve Jobs was making the rules sure. But this is Tim Cook's Apple and if he wants to release the iPad in the Fall or even a baby step every six months or so, they will. What was 'characteristic, doesn't apply anymore

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #98 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post

Come on.
OK here is something we can actually count - pixels.

Last time I checked:

2560 > 2048

1600 > 1536


It is really a simple math.

Except if it's a pentile display... and then you need to count subpixels ...if So then the effective resolution is less than the apparent resolution...

a pentile display has approximately 2 1/2 pixels per pixel because the red subpixel is shared with two pixels Thus 5 subpixels in total per 2 pixels. (blue-green-red-blue-green or is it green-blue-red-green-blue for 2 pixels)
Thus is the color resolution is lower or. Possibly blurry... might be moot point at this Resolution... but It does mean it is not a true 2560 screen resolution.

Furthermore Apple had a real problem getting 2048 pixels on their screen which equates to three times the number of sub pixels which means it's approximately 6144 sub pixels across... so Long story short the effective resolution of the Nexus 10 looks higher but it's the same

So Samsung by going to a Pentel display gets to play a numbers game and makes to screen resolution superior when in fact they gimped sorry they reduced the number of subpixels in order to increase the resolution...

so samsung has increased the number of subpixels by 4.167 percent...
Edited by haar - 10/31/12 at 12:47pm
post #99 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by haar View Post


Except if it's a pentile display... and then you need to count subpixels ...if So then the effective resolution is less than the apparent resolution...
a pentile display has approximately 2 1/2 pixels per pixel because the red subpixel is shared with two pixels Thus 5 subpixels in total per 2 pixels. (blue-green-red-blue-green or is it green-blue-red-green-blue for 2 pixels)
Thus is the color resolution is lower or. Possibly blurry... might be moot point at this Resolution... but It does mean it is not a true 2560 screen resolution.
Furthermore Apple had a real problem getting 2048 pixels on their screen which equates to three times the number of sub pixels which means it's approximately 6144 sub pixels across... so Long story short the effective resolution of the Nexus 10 looks higher but it's the same
So Samsung by going to a Pentel display gets to play a numbers game and makes to screen resolution superior when in fact they gimped sorry they reduced the number of subpixels in order to increase the resolution...
so samsung has increased the number of subpixels by 4.167 percent...

Except it's not a Pentile screen on the Nexus10, so a moot point. It uses a 10.055 PLS (Plane to Line Switching) LCD at 2560x1600, which makes it truly 300ppi (plus a smidge)


Edited by Gatorguy - 10/31/12 at 1:52pm
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #100 of 116
post #101 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Except it's not a Pentile screen on the Nexus10, so a moot point. It uses a 10.055 PLS (Plane to Line Switching) LCD at 2560x1600, which makes it truly 300ppi (plus a smidge)

I thought you were arguing that no one should comment on the product until it has been released?

Oh, you meant that no one should comment on the product unless they're shilling for Google. Got it.


In the end, though, this is typical of the kind of nonsense that the iHaters do. They argue over pointless specs. The iPad has a retina display. That means that your eyes can't discern individual pixels, so a finer resolution would be of zero value. In that case, color accuracy, viewing angle, brightness, etc will be far more relevant than the pointless resolution spec.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #102 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


I thought you were arguing that no one should comment on the product until it has been released?
Oh, you meant that no one should comment on the product unless they're shilling for Google. Got it.
In the end, though, this is typical of the kind of nonsense that the iHaters do. They argue over pointless specs. The iPad has a retina display. That means that your eyes can't discern individual pixels, so a finer resolution would be of zero value. In that case, color accuracy, viewing angle, brightness, etc will be far more relevant than the pointless resolution spec

Typical Joseph. You're the one claiming one is better/outperforms the other based on "pointless specs", not I.

 

BTW I missed your explanation for why you claim that Apple's stated resolution is real, while the one for the Nexus10 is fake, "significantly overstated" to use your words.

 

Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


No, it's not. You're comparing the Nexus' fake resolution to Apple's real resolution. Their resolution figures are significantly overstated because of the way they calculate them. Try putting the iPad 4 next to a Nexus 10 if you want to compare screens. Oh, wait. you can't - the Nexus 10 is vapor.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #103 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet… 

And all people can do is whine.

Best screen part is challenged by what is on new Nexus 10. It has higher resolution/dpi than iPad, though we will have to wait for some good in-depth review to see about other aspects of the screen and CPU/GPU performance.

Regardless of that, I don't think that Apple really needed this mid-cycle refresh. I think a lot of people liked previous Apple release predictability - it is just that, when some people buy latest and greatest, they like to know how long will it be that (I'm not defending this attitude, just stating it). Re speed up, how many people will really notice it? At the end, it is nice to have all current devices with unified connector, but then - if iPad 3 (and any previous iPhone) are still being made and sold, you don't have unified connector anyway.

Stealing the thunder from competitors on their big release dates? Feels a bit un-Apple, or at least un-SJ-Apple. But then, almost everyone else is doing it (trying it, actually), so. Why not Apple, too.
post #104 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I thought you were arguing that no one should comment on the product until it has been released?
Oh, you meant that no one should comment on the product unless they're shilling for Google. Got it.
In the end, though, this is typical of the kind of nonsense that the iHaters do. They argue over pointless specs. The iPad has a retina display. That means that your eyes can't discern individual pixels, so a finer resolution would be of zero value. In that case, color accuracy, viewing angle, brightness, etc will be far more relevant than the pointless resolution spec.

Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.

Regardless, iPad's Retina display was - to my knowledge - made by Samsung (among other manufacturers). Why is it so hard to believe that Samsung can make the same or better display for their products..?
post #105 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

I thought you were arguing that no one should comment on the product until it has been released?
Oh, you meant that no one should comment on the product unless they're shilling for Google. Got it.
In the end, though, this is typical of the kind of nonsense that the iHaters do. They argue over pointless specs. The iPad has a retina display. That means that your eyes can't discern individual pixels, so a finer resolution would be of zero value. In that case, color accuracy, viewing angle, brightness, etc will be far more relevant than the pointless resolution spec.

You can comment that the iPad mini has an A5. You can comment on what type of screen the nexus has- like not being a pentile one. Because those are facts. Google "fact".

Saying one is faster, one has better viewing angles, etc, can't happen because you can't compare them yet. This concept I would think a middle schooler could grasp. Although that would make everything you've said so far incorrect, so of course you'll try to argue even further. Google "troll".

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #106 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Typical Joseph. You're the one claiming one is better/outperforms the other based on "pointless specs", not I.

Typical response from you. Absolutely fabricated. I never claimed that the iPad outperforms anything. Someone else claimed that the Nexus 10 had higher resolution and I said that it doesn't. And, as you've admitted, since the product isn't on the market, no one can possibly say that it is better in any regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

BTW I missed your explanation for why you claim that Apple's stated resolution is real, while the one for the Nexus10 is fake, "significantly overstated" to use your words.

The reason is that if the resolution of this Nexus tablet is what they claim, it will be the first time ever. On every previous Nexus, they've used Pentile displays which has a much lower real resolution than the stated resolution.

Since there's no published information that says otherwise, why wouldn't people assume that they'll do what they've always done.

Furthermore, history shows convincingly that Apple's tablets and phones have significantly outperformed competitors' products even when their specs are comparable. Android tablets tend to focus on specs and then provide crappy, washed out or oversaturated screens with terrible viewing angles. Apple's screens have always been rated as the best available.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #107 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The trolls just don't stop.....
Fastest CPU? On paper - maybe. In real life, the iPad blows the Nexus away.
Highest resolution? Not even close.
... Nothing else comes close in performance.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Typical response from you. Absolutely fabricated. I never claimed that the iPad outperforms anything. Someone else claimed that the Nexus 10 had higher resolution and I said that it doesn't. And, as you've admitted, since the product isn't on the market, no one can possibly say that it is better in any regard.

'nuff said

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #108 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
 On every previous Nexus, they've used Pentile displays which has a much lower real resolution than the stated resolution.
Since there's no published information that says otherwise, why wouldn't people assume that they'll do what they've always done.

It been fairly widely reported by blogs like the Verge, Engadget and Wired that the display is a PLS-LCD display, not AMOLED.

http://www.theverge.com/products/nexus-10/6273

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #109 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post

Retina display is a moniker, not a scientific term. Retina on iPad hasn't got the same DPI as retina on iPhone (or MBP). It is also below 300dpi which, I think, is claimed to be resolving limit of human eye.

Nope. The resolving limit is what defines a retina display. If the pixel size is smaller than the resolving limit of the human eye, then it's a retina display. The point that you're missing is that the resolving limit depends on viewing distance. You tend to view a phone closer than a 10" tablet. So if 300 ppi is the resolving limit for a phone, the resolving limit for a 10" tablet would be a good bit lower (probably around 225-250, but I haven't calculated it). So you can't arbitrarily use 300 ppi as 'retina'. It depends on viewing distance. A TV would be retina with much lower resolution.
Edited by jragosta - 10/31/12 at 9:22pm
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #110 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet… 

 

And all people can do is whine.

So what does it take to be a non-incremental upgrade?  How many attributes does it take to NOT be an incremental upgrade?  

post #111 of 116
Originally Posted by drblank View Post
So what does it take to be a non-incremental upgrade?  How many attributes does it take to NOT be an incremental upgrade?  

 

I'd think processor (or major chip) change = non-incremental.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone] exists, it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #112 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

 

'nuff said

It's always funny that he just conveniently doesn't reply to the posts that he is proven dead-wrong and the troll he is.  lol

 

Yet he KEEPS posting!  It's unbelievable how people interpret themselves sometimes.... He truly thinks he is right... even when he's proven wrong.... thats the crazy part.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #113 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Yep. They give us the fastest tablet ever made with the best screen on a tablet and the most versatile port on a tablet… 

 

And all people can do is whine.


My question is what Apple will have next spring. While the iPad unquestionably has an advantage in the number and maturity of available applications, the form factor is now dated compared to the ones being offered by a number of others. Sure, you can buy a keyboard from Apple that works OK, but it is clunky and inconvenient to carry around. Some of the third party keyboard solutions are a bit better, but still no where nearly as well integrated as those offered by Asus, among others, or even the new Surface.

 

One has to hope that Apple is hard at work with something competitive in that regard, but one must also wonder because Apple are spending more on patents and patent litigation than R&D. Even with Apple increasing the amount of funding for R&D for next year, the percentage of revenue devoted to R&D is quite small when compared to some others. That said, Apple have benefited greatly from their association with Intel, not only in the availability of CPUs and retated chip sets, but engineering services that have enabled Apple to better field an array of products. Still, one should be concerned about the company's commitment to R&D. We have seen products which have been "late to market" for reasons that are not abundantly apparent.

 

Oh, "and one more thing"...Apple continue to not include an SD card slot with the iPad or other iOS devices. I've been advised that an SD card slot is a problem for some corporate and governmental entities. Can't Apple manage to figure out a way to have an option to delete it? It simply can not be that hard to do.

post #114 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nathillien View Post


You both are correct in a sense with slightly different viewing position.

"Retina Display" is just a brand name Apple is using (probably patent too 1tongue.gif ) and true it is not a scientific term - meaning - if you compare two screens with the same 'real' PPI; one "Retina Display" and the other NOT branded as "Retina Display" then the "Retina" branded display will not necessary give you better viewing pleasure compared to a display not branded as "Retina".
Before you all jump; let me rephrase:
It MIGHT give you better viewing pleasure but it's NOT necessary so, and certainly it's not necessary so solely on "Retina Display" brand. It would depend on other more important display feature/properties...

"Resolving Limit" defining a "Retina Display". hmmm - yes and no.
By jragosta's definition ANY display would fall into retina display definition (note that here i didn't use quotes) because, true, resolving limit does depend on the (eye-display) distance. And he states that fact; "A TV would be retina with much lower resolution" which is true if the TV is far enough.

So why any other displays are not "Retina Display" even if they all could be viewed as retina display? Because they are not BRANDED as "Retina Display" (note the quotes).

On one hand you CAN define certain scientific term of retina display by calculating pixels, (eye-display) distance, pixel per angle degree etc. but the brand "Retina Display" itself is not a scientific term - it's just a brand name for a display. 

 

I see "Retina Display" as more of a trademark than a patent. Except for it being a higher resolution display than what Apple had previously offered, there does not appear to be anything patentable about it. I see nothing to prevent anyone from manufacturing a display with X + some number of pixels which might equal or exceed that of a "Retina Display".






 

 

post #115 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I'd think processor (or major chip) change = non-incremental.


I see your point, but from the perspective of a user, the iPad 3 actually performed poorer than the iPad 2 in some respects because of the inability of the CPU to process the (larger) image files as quickly. The iPad 4, on the other hand, does improve performance which is the normal expectation of consumers when purchasing a next generation product or "next year's model".

 

Sure, the "next year's model" is not always better, take, for example, automobiles in the '70s. Engine performance declined dramatically, but that is more the exception than the rule. It is, perhaps, the exception that proves the rule.

 

From the outside, the iPad 4th Generation does not really present itself as anything particularly new, but it is most assuredly "better" than its predecessor.

 

Cheers.

post #116 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by RBR View Post

 

Oh, "and one more thing"...Apple continue to not include an SD card slot with the iPad or other iOS devices. I've been advised that an SD card slot is a problem for some corporate and governmental entities. Can't Apple manage to figure out a way to have an option to delete it? It simply can not be that hard to do.

 

The SD slot is not in the iPad (or iPhone) because of corporate or governmental agency restrictions.  That may be a consideration, but it's not the main issue.  The main issue is, who really needs it?  I've seen studies that show that most (not all, but most) people never swap out the SD card in their camera or phone.  They either use the original, or when they first get it, buy one and stick it in and it never gets removed again.  With that kind of usage, why add in complexity and cost (and bulk) when the feature would not be used as the feature it is.   Just add in the extra storage up front in the device.  That is lighter, allows thinner devices, costs less from a manufacturing standpoint, and is more "user friendly."  You will notice that most Android devices have smaller amounts of in-built flash memory.  Even today, though they are starting to get larger amounts to rival Apple's devices.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Reviewers confirm 4th-gen iPad is merely an incremental refresh