I've been ordering from the Apple Store on-line for six years almost every time a new product comes out. Today was the longest wait I've ever had. Salesperson said it was busiest she had ever seen it. I got a 64GIG IPAD 3 with 4G, and a 32GIG IPAD 3with WIFI. I'm actually blown away by all the improvements. I do wish they had one with 128GIG.
I don't know what the facts are either, but I don't think it's as categorical as "it's booked as a sale if it's on Best Buy's shelves". If that were the case, we'd see a lot more discounting on these products when a new one is introduced, no?
Not necessarily. The agreements would probably dictate the price they can resell an iPad for. Best Buy has to stick to whatever terms they agreed to.
The agreements Apple has with retailers are more like that. They specify things where iPads are in the store, how much they can or cannot sell them for, how they are displayed, and stuff like that.
In return, Best Buy gets a per-arranged price that they can pay Apple for iPads. Incidentally, that is one reason it took the original iPad a while to appear on store shelves. Apple had to prove it would sell before they made agreements.
Like I said, this is how it how it normally works. I could be wrong and someone with more experience in retail can correct me if I am wrong.
Not necessarily. The agreements would probably dictate the price they can resell an iPad for. Best Buy has to stick to whatever terms they agreed to.
The agreements Apple has with retailers are more like that. They specify things where iPads are in the store, how much they can or cannot sell them for, how they are displayed, and stuff like that.
In return, Best Buy gets a per-arranged price that they can pay Apple for iPads. Incidentally, that is one reason it took the original iPad a while to appear on store shelves. Apple had to prove it would sell before they made agreements.
Like I said, this is how it how it normally works. I could be wrong and someone with more experience in retail can correct me if I am wrong.
Actually, I should clarify I was speaking hypothetically. Assuming Apple gets terms that are similar to what other companies get, then this is what those agreement probably look like. I have no idea what they ACTUALLY look like.
iOS uses a HFS+ variant, just like OS X, which you could call proprietary, but it's well known and documented, and supported by many programs and operating systems not made by Apple. None of this has anything to do with why there is no manual filesystem management or an SD slot on iOS devices anyway.
There is no direct/manual filesystem access in iOS, because it doesn't fit the storage paradigm iOS uses, which is that applications live their own sandbox, and in general do not have any access to filesystem locations outside of it. The whole filesystem hierarchy is based around this idea, and you don't want to have to browse it manually because that would be extremely confusing and unintuitive. If applications need to share information there are application API's for that (e.g. to get to photo's, contacts, music, etc), which in general rely on the user not messing with the file system or just throwing files in some folder and expecting other applications to be able to access them. That's how every iOS application work, that's how the OS was designed.
Adding a Windows-like file manager to that idea doesn't make a lot of sense, I doubt if many power-users would even use it.
Basically making total data backups a complete nightmare. I run a 3 line script on my Asus Slider that basicly tars up my home directory, gzips it, ftps into a directory on my server pushes the file, and then closes the connection. All ran from a cron that goes off 3 times a week.
I really hope now that the iPad is making headway into the corporate arena that Apple will release a lite version of OSX for their tablets instead of iOS, it's just to much of a phone OS.
Regarding the various discussions regarding the iPad as a 'Retina display' device, the reduced ppi, etc., here is some good reading for a better understanding of the 'Retina display' concept.
Not necessarily. It is "shipped" for sure, but whether it is "sold" or not (at the end of the year) will depend on Apple's terms for returns with the retailer.
Apple reports returns in their investor reports? Where?
Apple says that in most instances shipped equals sold as far as they're concerned, but you already knew that.
So despite the 1.7x larger battery that still only gets 10 hours of usage, like the iPad 2, even without an LTE chip you have determined the additional power drain is from LTE with an MDM9600 (40nm) chip? That makes no sense as the 42.5 Whr battery is in the WiFi-only iPad, too.
I predicated my supposition on the SoC and the display having the same power draw as the ones in the iPad 2.
It may be that the A5x or the display draws a lot more power, but I'm thinking not. The big power draw on the display will be the backlight, and I'm thinking they are fairly similar. In addition, if these are IGZO displays, it should be a quite efficient display. IGZO has 30% better electron mobility than amorphous silicon. The A5x should also be about the same power as the A5 as I don't think Apple would put in a bigger heat source in the package.
On the other hand, LTE chipsets are known to draw about 2x the power of comparative HSPA/CDMA chipsets. So, yeah, going with LTE being the big power drain is a pretty safe assumption now.
Quote:
Simple answer: The display path needs more power to work.
If the WiFi battery performance testing proves to be 10 hours, then it'll be the A5x or the display. Wait and see.
Yeah, that is a good article. At least for people who are interested in reason and facts. It doesn't much help if your aim is simply to hate on Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xian Zhu Xuande
Regarding the various discussions regarding the iPad as a 'Retina display' device, the reduced ppi, etc., here is some good reading for a better understanding of the 'Retina display' concept.
This is from the Canadian page. Note that the UMTS bands are the same as the 3G model, so no T-Mobile/Wind support unless "2100" secretly means "1700/2100 AWS."
So this suggests the MDM9200 in the AT&T/Canada model and the MDM9600 in the Verizon model. Or they might use the same chip in both.
The Canadian carriers, Bell/Telus have 1700Mhz AWS LTE and 700Mhz LTE, Rogers is 2100Mhz (not AWS) and 2600 LTE.
AT&T's LTE is on 700Mhz, and so is Verizon's. So it's looking at this point that T-Mobile needs to put LTE on 700Mhz too if they want the iPad and next iPhone. The rumor is that they'll be using the same technology and bands AT&T uses going forward, which is a good thing.
Sprint is kinda toast at this point if they don't put LTE on the 700Mhz band too.
There's no beef with anyone, particularly Apple. I'd be fine with 9hrs (no plans upping my 2 anytime soon). Once again for the 8th or so time now my point is, hoping SOMEONE (Qualcomm?) finds a better way to optimize the darn LTE thing. I mean at 42.5w you're at near laptop battery size now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shrike
iPad 2012 has a 42 WHr while iPad 2011 has a 25 WHr battery. So, it appears Apple is using 40 nm LTE devices and therefore are drawing a lot power compared to HSPA devices at the same node.
OK. Let's see if we can walk the two of you through this.
You can't compare the iPad 3 to the iPad 2. They have different processors, different batteries, and different screens. It is meaningless to try to determine LTE efficiency by comparing the 2 to the 3.
What you can do is compare the iPad 3 on LTE to the iPad 3 on 3G. Same screen, same battery, same processor. Running on 3G, you get 10 hours. Running on LTE, you get 9.
Sounds to me like LTE is not killing battery life as the two of you keep asserting.
I thought Apple didnt need to boast about specifications to sell its products against companies who use Android?
I thought the usability is what is going to sell their products?
Why is Apple boasting about...... specifications?
When did they ever say that? That was an old misconception that was created when Apple went to PowerPC back in the 90's and Intel started creating faster CPUs.
Well Apple now has the best hardware available on their tablets so you better believe that they're going to shout that fact so everyone can here.
Good retina display, much needed by some such as myself, and I am definitely getting an iPad 3.
Any news on the ram, sorry but I didn't read the whole thread?
Other than that, as a lot of us have been saying before release 16gb storage is a joke, and apple should be ashamed for going 3 years until the next iPad without any bump in the storage whatsoever. No matter what the apologists here will say I cannot stomach how the entry model has the capacity of the iPod nano when it can do oh about 10,000 things more than the nano....
What's also less than exciting is the updates on ios front.
Well, anyway, looking forward a lot to the new display, should make my reading very enjoyable, but that's pretty much what the iPad 3 is about...
Underwhelmed. I'll wait for the next one. No surprises either and what about larger storage space. Can't edit high quality film and photos with only 16GB of storage.
Well then buy one of the OTHER iPad choices with the BIGGER storage options?
Comments
Keynote's up:
Video quality is amazing... best I've seen for a keynote.
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.ne...ent/index.html
There's no need for an apology!
I don't know what the facts are either, but I don't think it's as categorical as "it's booked as a sale if it's on Best Buy's shelves". If that were the case, we'd see a lot more discounting on these products when a new one is introduced, no?
Not necessarily. The agreements would probably dictate the price they can resell an iPad for. Best Buy has to stick to whatever terms they agreed to.
The agreements Apple has with retailers are more like that. They specify things where iPads are in the store, how much they can or cannot sell them for, how they are displayed, and stuff like that.
In return, Best Buy gets a per-arranged price that they can pay Apple for iPads. Incidentally, that is one reason it took the original iPad a while to appear on store shelves. Apple had to prove it would sell before they made agreements.
Like I said, this is how it how it normally works. I could be wrong and someone with more experience in retail can correct me if I am wrong.
Got my order in for iPad (3rd generation) and Apple TV (3rd generation) just as APPL rolled into the plus column for the day... good sign!
Lucky you!
I keep getting to "continue" (to get the order into my cart) and it says "Oops...". Very frustrating.
Not necessarily. The agreements would probably dictate the price they can resell an iPad for. Best Buy has to stick to whatever terms they agreed to.
The agreements Apple has with retailers are more like that. They specify things where iPads are in the store, how much they can or cannot sell them for, how they are displayed, and stuff like that.
In return, Best Buy gets a per-arranged price that they can pay Apple for iPads. Incidentally, that is one reason it took the original iPad a while to appear on store shelves. Apple had to prove it would sell before they made agreements.
Like I said, this is how it how it normally works. I could be wrong and someone with more experience in retail can correct me if I am wrong.
Actually, I should clarify I was speaking hypothetically. Assuming Apple gets terms that are similar to what other companies get, then this is what those agreement probably look like. I have no idea what they ACTUALLY look like.
iOS uses a HFS+ variant, just like OS X, which you could call proprietary, but it's well known and documented, and supported by many programs and operating systems not made by Apple. None of this has anything to do with why there is no manual filesystem management or an SD slot on iOS devices anyway.
There is no direct/manual filesystem access in iOS, because it doesn't fit the storage paradigm iOS uses, which is that applications live their own sandbox, and in general do not have any access to filesystem locations outside of it. The whole filesystem hierarchy is based around this idea, and you don't want to have to browse it manually because that would be extremely confusing and unintuitive. If applications need to share information there are application API's for that (e.g. to get to photo's, contacts, music, etc), which in general rely on the user not messing with the file system or just throwing files in some folder and expecting other applications to be able to access them. That's how every iOS application work, that's how the OS was designed.
Adding a Windows-like file manager to that idea doesn't make a lot of sense, I doubt if many power-users would even use it.
Basically making total data backups a complete nightmare. I run a 3 line script on my Asus Slider that basicly tars up my home directory, gzips it, ftps into a directory on my server pushes the file, and then closes the connection. All ran from a cron that goes off 3 times a week.
I really hope now that the iPad is making headway into the corporate arena that Apple will release a lite version of OSX for their tablets instead of iOS, it's just to much of a phone OS.
Retinay Display Macs, iPads, and HiDPI: Doing the Math
Not necessarily. It is "shipped" for sure, but whether it is "sold" or not (at the end of the year) will depend on Apple's terms for returns with the retailer.
Apple reports returns in their investor reports? Where?
Apple says that in most instances shipped equals sold as far as they're concerned, but you already knew that.
So despite the 1.7x larger battery that still only gets 10 hours of usage, like the iPad 2, even without an LTE chip you have determined the additional power drain is from LTE with an MDM9600 (40nm) chip? That makes no sense as the 42.5 Whr battery is in the WiFi-only iPad, too.
I predicated my supposition on the SoC and the display having the same power draw as the ones in the iPad 2.
It may be that the A5x or the display draws a lot more power, but I'm thinking not. The big power draw on the display will be the backlight, and I'm thinking they are fairly similar. In addition, if these are IGZO displays, it should be a quite efficient display. IGZO has 30% better electron mobility than amorphous silicon. The A5x should also be about the same power as the A5 as I don't think Apple would put in a bigger heat source in the package.
On the other hand, LTE chipsets are known to draw about 2x the power of comparative HSPA/CDMA chipsets. So, yeah, going with LTE being the big power drain is a pretty safe assumption now.
Simple answer: The display path needs more power to work.
If the WiFi battery performance testing proves to be 10 hours, then it'll be the A5x or the display. Wait and see.
Regarding the various discussions regarding the iPad as a 'Retina display' device, the reduced ppi, etc., here is some good reading for a better understanding of the 'Retina display' concept.
Retinay Display Macs, iPads, and HiDPI: Doing the Math
I thought the usability is what is going to sell their products?
Why is Apple boasting about...... specifications?
For those having problems reaching the site:
Wi-Fi + 4G: LTE (700, 2100 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz);
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
This is from the Canadian page. Note that the UMTS bands are the same as the 3G model, so no T-Mobile/Wind support unless "2100" secretly means "1700/2100 AWS."
On the US site:
Wi-Fi + 4G for AT&T model:
LTE (700, 2100 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
Wi-Fi + 4G for Verizon model:
LTE (700 MHz)
CDMA EV-DO Rev. A (800, 1900 MHz)
UMTS/HSPA/HSPA+/DC-HSDPA (850, 900, 1900, 2100 MHz)
GSM/EDGE (850, 900, 1800, 1900 MHz)
So this suggests the MDM9200 in the AT&T/Canada model and the MDM9600 in the Verizon model. Or they might use the same chip in both.
The Canadian carriers, Bell/Telus have 1700Mhz AWS LTE and 700Mhz LTE, Rogers is 2100Mhz (not AWS) and 2600 LTE.
AT&T's LTE is on 700Mhz, and so is Verizon's. So it's looking at this point that T-Mobile needs to put LTE on 700Mhz too if they want the iPad and next iPhone. The rumor is that they'll be using the same technology and bands AT&T uses going forward, which is a good thing.
Sprint is kinda toast at this point if they don't put LTE on the 700Mhz band too.
There's no beef with anyone, particularly Apple. I'd be fine with 9hrs (no plans upping my 2 anytime soon). Once again for the 8th or so time now my point is, hoping SOMEONE (Qualcomm?) finds a better way to optimize the darn LTE thing. I mean at 42.5w you're at near laptop battery size now.
iPad 2012 has a 42 WHr while iPad 2011 has a 25 WHr battery. So, it appears Apple is using 40 nm LTE devices and therefore are drawing a lot power compared to HSPA devices at the same node.
OK. Let's see if we can walk the two of you through this.
You can't compare the iPad 3 to the iPad 2. They have different processors, different batteries, and different screens. It is meaningless to try to determine LTE efficiency by comparing the 2 to the 3.
What you can do is compare the iPad 3 on LTE to the iPad 3 on 3G. Same screen, same battery, same processor. Running on 3G, you get 10 hours. Running on LTE, you get 9.
Sounds to me like LTE is not killing battery life as the two of you keep asserting.
I thought Apple didnt need to boast about specifications to sell its products against companies who use Android?
I thought the usability is what is going to sell their products?
Why is Apple boasting about...... specifications?
When did they ever say that? That was an old misconception that was created when Apple went to PowerPC back in the 90's and Intel started creating faster CPUs.
Well Apple now has the best hardware available on their tablets so you better believe that they're going to shout that fact so everyone can here.
Vlingo was just updated in the iTunes store...
Any news on the ram, sorry but I didn't read the whole thread?
Other than that, as a lot of us have been saying before release 16gb storage is a joke, and apple should be ashamed for going 3 years until the next iPad without any bump in the storage whatsoever. No matter what the apologists here will say I cannot stomach how the entry model has the capacity of the iPod nano when it can do oh about 10,000 things more than the nano....
What's also less than exciting is the updates on ios front.
Well, anyway, looking forward a lot to the new display, should make my reading very enjoyable, but that's pretty much what the iPad 3 is about...
"Mom! I built a REAL rocket based on the macaroni prototype!!"
.
.
.
.
.
.
"eh."
Lol that never gets old, although only those with small kids knows what your talking about.
Underwhelmed. I'll wait for the next one. No surprises either
Well then buy one of the OTHER iPad choices with the BIGGER storage options?