You'll find a lot just listing the number of "cells". It's simply amazing that Samab thinks Apple is so awful in having better than average batteries and isn't listing enough data despite listing more than the competition.
You're absolutely right. I also checked HP, Acer and Toshiba and even in the detailed specs they only give the number of cells.
But it may not be a "better than average" battery --- Apple just may have just given you a bigger average battery.
Firstly, why does it matter?
Secondly, when have Apple ever stated they are giving us an above average battery? They tout the battery life of the iPad, not the technology in the battery.
You're bogged down in a tiny detail that doesn't even have any basis in fact and make statements that simply aren't true (about nobody using WHrs when Dell do).
Secondly, when have Apple ever stated they are giving us an above average battery? They tout the battery life of the iPad, not the technology in the battery.
samab's too focussed upon saying how "average" Apple is to address the facts.
samab's too focussed upon saying how "average" Apple is to address the facts.
What facts are those? It is a combination of an under-reported battery size, task-switching instead of real multi-tasking, no flash, and 720p video decoding.
If the ipad 2 can play 10 hours of 720p video and some other tablet can play only 8 hours of 1080p video --- which one is better? It takes more than twice the CPU power to decode 1080p video.
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 pretty amazing that they can pack so much computing power in almost no electronics.
But it may not be a "better than average" battery --- Apple just may have just given you a bigger average battery.
Your argument is completely pointless. Who cares how they do it, they give you 10 hours of battery life in a device waaaay thinner than the competition. If it's just a bigger battery then why can't the competition match this?
What camera did iFixit use to photograph the innards? The "mega" sized image of the motherboard is 51 MP! That's in medium format/Hasselblad territory!
Hmmmm... Not really understanding this whole "argument" over battery life. Watts, mAH, volts, whatever don't matter to me. The number that I'm most interested in is the 10 hours battery life. And apparently, Apple doesn't come to this number by nerdy calculations, but by "real world" testing.
This is the thing with Apple lately: they're more concerned with usability and performance than the rest of the industry's "mine is bigger than yours" approach to spec comparisons. The fact that Apple can make the iPad 2 quite literally do "more with less"?like run iOS smoothly on 512 MB is much more impressive than some kinda monster device crammed with 1, 2 or 4 GB RAM and still is jerky and clumsy.
Apple's philosophical approach to hardware/software integration is that your Mac or iOS device should run so smoothly that you don't even think about the technology that's driving it. I mean, who cares how many gigabytes or gigahertz or cores are involved, as long as I can do my work, and do it quickly and efficiently; or, enjoy my playtime as well?
Specs may be meaningful to geek-heads and tech-nerds, but they don't mean that much to me.* As long as I can do the work/play that I want, and look/feel good doing it!
*no offense to geek-heads and tech-nerds intended!
What facts are those? It is a combination of an under-reported battery size, task-switching instead of real multi-tasking, no flash, and 720p video decoding.
If the ipad 2 can play 10 hours of 720p video and some other tablet can play only 8 hours of 1080p video --- which one is better? It takes more than twice the CPU power to decode 1080p video.
You're comparing Apple's tested and claimed performance* against the hypothetical performance of a non-existent product**. That's just crazy talk!
*Because the iPad 2 is now out and in the field, it is possible for anyone who has one to actually test Apple's claims.
**And not likely to exist for quite some time—I'm fairly certain that the 2011 crop of "competitor" tablets will not be able to boast anywhere near that level of performance.
To a consumer, ANYTIME some company gives you a NON-STANDARD way to describe a product --- that raises alarm bells. Simple as that.
You are making a complete non-point. You're acting as if Apple is making deceptive battery life claims when it isn't. Independent tests have shown that the battery life in the iPad matches or exceeds Apple's claims whilst performing various tasks. That battery life happens to be among the best in the market. I really don't see how it matters whether Apple achieves that with a massive battery or just high power efficiency.
Can you tell me exactly how any of what you're saying relates in any way to the consumer's experience with the iPad? Where are these 'alarm bells'? Why should I - or anybody else - not buy an iPad based on Apple's chosen units of battery capacity - which it doesn't even advertise?
As for 'nobody else breaks battery life down into tasks' - is there a better way? Since cell phones were invented, manufacturers have specified one number for talk time and another for standby time. Now devices do so much, it's impossible to give a single battery life figure. When the battery lasts for several days of music playback, about ten hours of browsing and a bit less for video playback, exactly which one number is Apple supposed to give? The battery life depends entirely on how you use the device.
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.
Time for you to revisit your high school science class.
Amperes are not a measure of electric power, and ampere-hours are not a measure of stored energy. Power is a function of current multiplied by voltage. Further multiply that by time and you get energy. If the voltage is different, as here, then comparing ampere-hours is invalid.
And contrary to your assertion, laptop batteries, including those from Apple (see http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html) are indeed commonly specified in watt-hours. Many PC laptops offer lower or higher capacity battery options and that's exactly, and properly, how they're described.
In the case of the iPad and iPad 2 the point is moot, since the difference between 25 W-h and 24.8 W-h is so small at less than 1%. Part-to-part variations are likely greater than that.
Immediately after Apple's release of the iPad 2 on Friday, iFixit began a teardown of Apple's iPad 2, (snip)
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. (SNIP)
For more details, see the detailed step-by-step teardown at iFixit.
I noticed that the A5 system bus was clocked @ 200 mhz/sec. Does the system architecture use quad pumping concepts ... a la x86 ... but integrated vs discreet chip interfacing?
One analyst mentioned prior to release of specs that memory is LPDDR2 in iPAD2, and IPDDR1 in the original iPAD. This same analyst suggested 1066 memory bus speeds instead of 800.
I would like to gain a better understanding on this issue. Any factual posting would be appreciated.
Nice to know the battery capacity, but the only think I can really conclude from a 25Wh capacity statement with a 10 hour life on one charge is that the iPad2 draws no more than 2.5Wh per hour on average (and possibly a little less for a reserve to shut down gracefully)!
The footnote in the tech spec goes into excruciating detail on the test setup to determine battery life, I can't see how much more disclosure would he helpful in making a purchase decision. What isn't mentioned in the tech specs is the expected number of recharge cycles - a much higher number than usual has been Apple's selling point on the newer MacBook Pros.
Your argument is completely pointless. Who cares how they do it, they give you 10 hours of battery life in a device waaaay thinner than the competition. If it's just a bigger battery then why can't the competition match this?
Much thinner glass and plenty of glue --- thinner comes at a price.
This is the thing with Apple lately: they're more concerned with usability and performance than the rest of the industry's "mine is bigger than yours" approach to spec comparisons. The fact that Apple can make the iPad 2 quite literally do "more with less"?like run iOS smoothly on 512 MB is much more impressive than some kinda monster device crammed with 1, 2 or 4 GB RAM and still is jerky and clumsy.
Except that Apple talk "mine is bigger than yours" when it suits them --- like 9x GPU power.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Futuristic
You're comparing Apple's tested and claimed performance* against the hypothetical performance of a non-existent product**. That's just crazy talk!
*Because the iPad 2 is now out and in the field, it is possible for anyone who has one to actually test Apple's claims.
**And not likely to exist for quite some time?I'm fairly certain that the 2011 crop of "competitor" tablets will not be able to boast anywhere near that level of performance.
If you don't believe my argument that they under-reported the original ipad's battery capacity --- then you got a 5% larger battery in the ipad2 with Mossberg saying that he got more than a hour less in battery life than the original ipad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphonious
You are making a complete non-point. You're acting as if Apple is making deceptive battery life claims when it isn't. Independent tests have shown that the battery life in the iPad matches or exceeds Apple's claims whilst performing various tasks. That battery life happens to be among the best in the market. I really don't see how it matters whether Apple achieves that with a massive battery or just high power efficiency.
It is as "deceptive" as Verizon telling America that they got x times larger 3G coverage than AT&T. So what if those 3G territories have more cows than humans.
There is no high power efficiency --- it's a massive under-reported battery capacity, with task-switching, no flash and 720p video decoding. Much harder for RIM to give you any sort of decent battery life with desktop multitasking, flash and 1080p video decoding.
Comments
You'll find a lot just listing the number of "cells". It's simply amazing that Samab thinks Apple is so awful in having better than average batteries and isn't listing enough data despite listing more than the competition.
You're absolutely right. I also checked HP, Acer and Toshiba and even in the detailed specs they only give the number of cells.
But it may not be a "better than average" battery --- Apple just may have just given you a bigger average battery.
Firstly, why does it matter?
Secondly, when have Apple ever stated they are giving us an above average battery? They tout the battery life of the iPad, not the technology in the battery.
You're bogged down in a tiny detail that doesn't even have any basis in fact and make statements that simply aren't true (about nobody using WHrs when Dell do).
Firstly, why does it matter?
It really doesn't matter. There is nothing wrong being average.
Secondly, when have Apple ever stated they are giving us an above average battery? They tout the battery life of the iPad, not the technology in the battery.
samab's too focussed upon saying how "average" Apple is to address the facts.
samab's too focussed upon saying how "average" Apple is to address the facts.
What facts are those? It is a combination of an under-reported battery size, task-switching instead of real multi-tasking, no flash, and 720p video decoding.
If the ipad 2 can play 10 hours of 720p video and some other tablet can play only 8 hours of 1080p video --- which one is better? It takes more than twice the CPU power to decode 1080p video.
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 pretty amazing that they can pack so much computing power in almost no electronics.
Has the RAM been finally confirmed? 512MB?
This was confirmed ages ago when reviewers ran istat on it.
But it may not be a "better than average" battery --- Apple just may have just given you a bigger average battery.
Your argument is completely pointless. Who cares how they do it, they give you 10 hours of battery life in a device waaaay thinner than the competition. If it's just a bigger battery then why can't the competition match this?
This is the thing with Apple lately: they're more concerned with usability and performance than the rest of the industry's "mine is bigger than yours" approach to spec comparisons. The fact that Apple can make the iPad 2 quite literally do "more with less"?like run iOS smoothly on 512 MB is much more impressive than some kinda monster device crammed with 1, 2 or 4 GB RAM and still is jerky and clumsy.
Apple's philosophical approach to hardware/software integration is that your Mac or iOS device should run so smoothly that you don't even think about the technology that's driving it. I mean, who cares how many gigabytes or gigahertz or cores are involved, as long as I can do my work, and do it quickly and efficiently; or, enjoy my playtime as well?
Specs may be meaningful to geek-heads and tech-nerds, but they don't mean that much to me.* As long as I can do the work/play that I want, and look/feel good doing it!
*no offense to geek-heads and tech-nerds intended!
What facts are those? It is a combination of an under-reported battery size, task-switching instead of real multi-tasking, no flash, and 720p video decoding.
If the ipad 2 can play 10 hours of 720p video and some other tablet can play only 8 hours of 1080p video --- which one is better? It takes more than twice the CPU power to decode 1080p video.
You're comparing Apple's tested and claimed performance* against the hypothetical performance of a non-existent product**. That's just crazy talk!
*Because the iPad 2 is now out and in the field, it is possible for anyone who has one to actually test Apple's claims.
**And not likely to exist for quite some time—I'm fairly certain that the 2011 crop of "competitor" tablets will not be able to boast anywhere near that level of performance.
To a consumer, ANYTIME some company gives you a NON-STANDARD way to describe a product --- that raises alarm bells. Simple as that.
You are making a complete non-point. You're acting as if Apple is making deceptive battery life claims when it isn't. Independent tests have shown that the battery life in the iPad matches or exceeds Apple's claims whilst performing various tasks. That battery life happens to be among the best in the market. I really don't see how it matters whether Apple achieves that with a massive battery or just high power efficiency.
Can you tell me exactly how any of what you're saying relates in any way to the consumer's experience with the iPad? Where are these 'alarm bells'? Why should I - or anybody else - not buy an iPad based on Apple's chosen units of battery capacity - which it doesn't even advertise?
As for 'nobody else breaks battery life down into tasks' - is there a better way? Since cell phones were invented, manufacturers have specified one number for talk time and another for standby time. Now devices do so much, it's impossible to give a single battery life figure. When the battery lasts for several days of music playback, about ten hours of browsing and a bit less for video playback, exactly which one number is Apple supposed to give? The battery life depends entirely on how you use the device.
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.
Time for you to revisit your high school science class.
Amperes are not a measure of electric power, and ampere-hours are not a measure of stored energy. Power is a function of current multiplied by voltage. Further multiply that by time and you get energy. If the voltage is different, as here, then comparing ampere-hours is invalid.
And contrary to your assertion, laptop batteries, including those from Apple (see http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html) are indeed commonly specified in watt-hours. Many PC laptops offer lower or higher capacity battery options and that's exactly, and properly, how they're described.
In the case of the iPad and iPad 2 the point is moot, since the difference between 25 W-h and 24.8 W-h is so small at less than 1%. Part-to-part variations are likely greater than that.
Um, I think that is missing a decimal point!
Immediately after Apple's release of the iPad 2 on Friday, iFixit began a teardown of Apple's iPad 2, (snip)
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. (SNIP)
For more details, see the detailed step-by-step teardown at iFixit.
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
I noticed that the A5 system bus was clocked @ 200 mhz/sec. Does the system architecture use quad pumping concepts ... a la x86 ... but integrated vs discreet chip interfacing?
One analyst mentioned prior to release of specs that memory is LPDDR2 in iPAD2, and IPDDR1 in the original iPAD. This same analyst suggested 1066 memory bus speeds instead of 800.
I would like to gain a better understanding on this issue. Any factual posting would be appreciated.
The footnote in the tech spec goes into excruciating detail on the test setup to determine battery life, I can't see how much more disclosure would he helpful in making a purchase decision. What isn't mentioned in the tech specs is the expected number of recharge cycles - a much higher number than usual has been Apple's selling point on the newer MacBook Pros.
Your argument is completely pointless. Who cares how they do it, they give you 10 hours of battery life in a device waaaay thinner than the competition. If it's just a bigger battery then why can't the competition match this?
Much thinner glass and plenty of glue --- thinner comes at a price.
This is the thing with Apple lately: they're more concerned with usability and performance than the rest of the industry's "mine is bigger than yours" approach to spec comparisons. The fact that Apple can make the iPad 2 quite literally do "more with less"?like run iOS smoothly on 512 MB is much more impressive than some kinda monster device crammed with 1, 2 or 4 GB RAM and still is jerky and clumsy.
Except that Apple talk "mine is bigger than yours" when it suits them --- like 9x GPU power.
You're comparing Apple's tested and claimed performance* against the hypothetical performance of a non-existent product**. That's just crazy talk!
*Because the iPad 2 is now out and in the field, it is possible for anyone who has one to actually test Apple's claims.
**And not likely to exist for quite some time?I'm fairly certain that the 2011 crop of "competitor" tablets will not be able to boast anywhere near that level of performance.
If you don't believe my argument that they under-reported the original ipad's battery capacity --- then you got a 5% larger battery in the ipad2 with Mossberg saying that he got more than a hour less in battery life than the original ipad.
You are making a complete non-point. You're acting as if Apple is making deceptive battery life claims when it isn't. Independent tests have shown that the battery life in the iPad matches or exceeds Apple's claims whilst performing various tasks. That battery life happens to be among the best in the market. I really don't see how it matters whether Apple achieves that with a massive battery or just high power efficiency.
It is as "deceptive" as Verizon telling America that they got x times larger 3G coverage than AT&T. So what if those 3G territories have more cows than humans.
There is no high power efficiency --- it's a massive under-reported battery capacity, with task-switching, no flash and 720p video decoding. Much harder for RIM to give you any sort of decent battery life with desktop multitasking, flash and 1080p video decoding.