There are many different use cases, Apple usually states averages. Some may get less, some may get more. This is especially true when it comes to wireless radios which may have to boost power to make a connection depending on how crappy the signal strength is. All in all I've been pleasantly surprised with how long my original iPad still holds up after two years of use.
Pleasantly surprised? I'm bloody amazed that my iPad 1 still lasts 10 hours. Having gone through countless PC laptop batteries over the years (3 months on HP) I'm also amazed that my 2010 MacBook can still power through upto 6 hours or more (8GB ram, hybrid). Apple have really made great progress in batteries, let's hope they keep it up.
Predictions for the future
Solar panel on iPad (we all have to go green)
The shake pad (shake to charge) anyone seem those torches that you shake to charge?
That's from the same episode where the 'Shut up and take my money!" meme comes from.
Something like that maybe, but who can predict the future exactly?
But I do think tech advances feed off each other, leading to exponential growth, so there will be a lot more change over the next 10 years than in the previous 10, which is why I suggested some kind of body mounted device replacing the iPad by then. Hopefully an Apple device, if they continue to take miniaturisation seriously after Steve.
Something like that maybe, but who can predict the future exactly?
But I do think tech advances feed off each other, leading to exponential growth, so there will be a lot more change over the next 10 years than in the previous 10, which is why I suggested some kind of body mounted device replacing the iPad by then. Hopefully an Apple device, if they continue to take miniaturisation seriously after Steve.
That is the trend but I think we'll see our devices working with wearable accessories first. Right now Nike Fuel Band seems to be the coolest solution in that genre.
Really?! Then how come Tango and other work over cellular then? It is not technical issue. FaceTime was hacked to work over 3G with jailbreaking the first day it came out. I believe the issue is video quality over 3G.
Isn't it interesting that a company so obsessed with thinness would neglect that obsession for the sake of battery life? To me, this proves Apple cares about user experience and lays to rest the idea that Apple chooses form over function.
Many others would have chosen thinness at the cost of battery life.
Think different.
Apple has ALWAYS cared about user experience rather than specs. They increased the thickness of the iPhone 4, as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
I guess my arms will have to get 8% stronger...
Then you should be sending Apple a thank you note for their exercise program.
Seriously, it absolutely amazes me how people will complain about an extra ounce or so in weight. Are we Americans really that helpless and flabby?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee
I've looked over all the reviews (and there are lots) and I have come to one conclusion:
Apple must have spent a fortune to be able to bribe every journalist to say the same thing - that the Retina Display is incredible and the iPad is still the tablet to beat.
Or maybe the Retina Display really is incredible and the iPad is still the tablet to beat - and the reporters simply reported the facts.
... sounds great, but given that I rarely ever even get 3G speeds on this iPad 2 (AT&T) here, it's really not a selling point. I am sure the display is spectacular, but I don't even appreciate the retina display on my iPhone 4s compared to earlier iPhones, so it's not for me. I hope Apple can keep up their sales momentum, because while the update from iPad 1 to 2 was a slam dunk for me, this seems a little more questionable. Added weight (albeit small) and some reduction in battery life are not helping either.
Sent via AT&T Edge from San Diego
I feel exactly the opposite. I didn't even consider the iPad2 but now it's time to upgrade. Actually this is the first time I haven't sold my older Apple product to fund a new purchase. My family uses my iPad so much we're just going to keep it. We're a two iPad family now.
I've looked over all the reviews (and there are lots) and I have come to one conclusion:
Apple must have spent a fortune to be able to bribe every journalist to say the same thing - that the Retina Display is incredible and the iPad is still the tablet to beat.
That's right, they bribed every journalist. It couldn't be that the product is actually really good. Keep reaching.
Some of the details of the iPad announcement signify a shift in Apple's thinking. And I am not sure yet, but I think this could be a massive change in mentality for Apple. Whether it is better in the long run or not, only time will tell.
The first change I see, is that under Steve Jobs, Apple would have likely priced the new iPad at $579 or $599 - claiming that this radical new screen never before seen in any mobile device and LTE with whole day battery life was a steal at $579. I remember the iPhone launch - when Apple said this device combines a phone, iPod and internet browser - and even if you paid $200 for each, it would work out $599! Pricing the new iPad at $499 is mind boggling in several ways. Considering that Samsung is the only vendor that has managed to meet Apple's specs, it is very likely that Apple will be supply constrained for a long time. They are easily missing out on an additional $80 to $100 on each device. Very few people would have complained, and even those who complained would have happily paid up for this device.
The second change is in making the device slightly heavier and bigger - to keep battery life high, and still support Apple. Very likely Apple under Steve would have declared LTE to be not yet meeting Apple's requirements for battery life, and not yet fully deployed across the US and across the world, so at this point in time, LTE is a meaningless spec. Apple would have likely given up on LTE if they could keep the weight and size down to iPad 2 levels. This is a major shift in Apple's mentality - when a compromise has to be made, Apple is ready to make the compromise, without compromising on usability.
The new Apple will be even harder to compete against - Steve Jobs for all his skills and magic, still left some flanks open - either by pricing his products high, or by skipping on some of the latest features that were not yet fully ready for prime time. The new Apple is not leaving those flanks open - how on earth is the competition going to survive against this Apple!
The Apple under Steve was a "we are pricey, but we don't really want to serve 100% of the market anyway - if you think we are too pricey, you are welcome to buy crap from the competition". The Apple under Tim Cook seems to be following a totally different approach. Price the product cheap, go for marketshare and momentum, leverage every possible strength to improve margins despite pricing the product at levels the competition just cannot meet.
I think (not sure yet) that Tim Cook's Apple will be a lot more successful. Steve's influence was essential in taking Apple to the levels it reached, but once Apple reached where it is today, it is Tim Cook magic that will keep it running.
Because there is no point having the best product in the world - if you can't make nearly enough of it!
Steve Jobs created a lot of magic - but in some ways, what Tim Cook is pulling off is also quite magical. Some day, we will read about how Apple revolutionized the logistics business, till then Tim Cook will remain an unsung hero.
thanks for that December link. don't you wonder why all the spec-heads who endlessly tout Android devices' paper specs compared to iPad/iPhone never talk about actual test results? you'd think they would dote on techie stuff like that. can't think of why ...
Some of the details of the iPad announcement signify a shift in Apple's thinking. And I am not sure yet, but I think this could be a massive change in mentality for Apple. Whether it is better in the long run or not, only time will tell.
The first change I see, is that under Steve Jobs, Apple would have likely priced the new iPad at $579 or $599 - claiming that this radical new screen never before seen in any mobile device and LTE with whole day battery life was a steal at $579. I remember the iPhone launch - when Apple said this device combines a phone, iPod and internet browser - and even if you paid $200 for each, it would work out $599! Pricing the new iPad at $499 is mind boggling in several ways. Considering that Samsung is the only vendor that has managed to meet Apple's specs, it is very likely that Apple will be supply constrained for a long time. They are easily missing out on an additional $80 to $100 on each device. Very few people would have complained, and even those who complained would have happily paid up for this device.
The second change is in making the device slightly heavier and bigger - to keep battery life high, and still support Apple. Very likely Apple under Steve would have declared LTE to be not yet meeting Apple's requirements for battery life, and not yet fully deployed across the US and across the world, so at this point in time, LTE is a meaningless spec. Apple would have likely given up on LTE if they could keep the weight and size down to iPad 2 levels. This is a major shift in Apple's mentality - when a compromise has to be made, Apple is ready to make the compromise, without compromising on usability.
The new Apple will be even harder to compete against - Steve Jobs for all his skills and magic, still left some flanks open - either by pricing his products high, or by skipping on some of the latest features that were not yet fully ready for prime time. The new Apple is not leaving those flanks open - how on earth is the competition going to survive against this Apple!
The Apple under Steve was a "we are pricey, but we don't really want to serve 100% of the market anyway - if you think we are too pricey, you are welcome to buy crap from the competition". The Apple under Tim Cook seems to be following a totally different approach. Price the product cheap, go for marketshare and momentum, leverage every possible strength to improve margins despite pricing the product at levels the competition just cannot meet.
I think (not sure yet) that Tim Cook's Apple will be a lot more successful. Steve's influence was essential in taking Apple to the levels it reached, but once Apple reached where it is today, it is Tim Cook magic that will keep it running.
Because there is no point having the best product in the world - if you can't make nearly enough of it!
Steve Jobs created a lot of magic - but in some ways, what Tim Cook is pulling off is also quite magical. Some day, we will read about how Apple revolutionized the logistics business, till then Tim Cook will remain an unsung hero.
I don't buy your logic.
For the first argument, Apple has been adding features to its new devices while maintaining the same price point for years. In fact, that's the way they always work - add new features, but keep the price the same.
Second argument is equally weak. Apple made iPhone 4 heaver than iPhone 3GS to add capability. I don't think that's the only time, either.
For the first argument, Apple has been adding features to its new devices while maintaining the same price point for years. In fact, that's the way they always work - add new features, but keep the price the same.
Second argument is equally weak. Apple made iPhone 4 heaver than iPhone 3GS to add capability. I don't think that's the only time, either.
Maybe when you are in the US you don't realize the price increase from the 3GS to the 4 and 4S -because your carriers just absorb a slightly higher subsidy. But in the rest of the world, it is quite visible how much Apple has increased prices as the technology increased significantly from 3GS to the 4. Even in the US, the price of the iPod Touch went up from $199 to $229 when it moved to a retina display.
Yes - generally Apple has kept prices same and has added functionality - but this is usually just following Moore's law dynamics - when they can give you a better functionality for the same price after a period of time. Whenever Apple has given radically different technology, they have previously charged a premium for it.
When the MacMini became Unibody, the price was increased. There is no longer a $499 model around (unless you consider discounts from some online stores before a product refresh).
And frankly, the kind of upgrades other Apple products have had pale in comparison to the kind of upgrade the iPad just had. Don't underestimate how radical the new iPad is compared to the iPad 2. It is not just a case of the specs, but about how difficult it is to implement that spec in practice. This is a product no one was asking for (before the rumors began) - but when they see it, they will want it.
You have to admit, it's pretty stupid that the new iPad did not get an LED Flash to go along with the much improved camera!!!
no i don't. i don't know about you, but i use my iPad 2 camera quite a bit and speak from experience (do you?). close up snapshots where a flash would matter are the least likely use of the iPad camera. you really want to use your camera phone for those. the iPhone does a super job of course, and that is what i have with me at social events anyway where i take snaps under poor lighting conditions, not the iPad.
for stills, the iPad camera is most useful for wide angle type situations where the extra screen area comes in handy. as those are typically beyond flash range, it would be pointless.
mainly tho i use it for video with FaceTime. because then the large iPad screen is really great for viewing each other, and then i flip to the front camera to show what i'm looking at/talking about, which is really handy. again, here the wide field of vision is often better for that compared to a phone camera.
having 1080p video capture in the new iPad is nice, but the upgrade doesn't matter for FaceTime i think. that's one reason i haven't decided yet to upgrade to the new iPad. have to go look at one and see for myself if the new screen really knocks me out.
Isn't it interesting that a company so obsessed with thinness would neglect that obsession for the sake of battery life? To me, this proves Apple cares about user experience and lays to rest the idea that Apple chooses form over function.
Many others would have chosen thinness at the cost of battery life.
Think different.
Think, "it has to last a business day without recharging." That's apparently the gold standard for tablet battery life, according to Apple.
That is the attention to detail that other manufacturers aren't getting.
Comments
We would end up in let's say 10 years with an iPad thikness of exactly..... Uh, Oh. Ummmh, Oh well, never mind.
It will have 0 thickness, because we won't be using iPads in 10 years.
There are many different use cases, Apple usually states averages. Some may get less, some may get more. This is especially true when it comes to wireless radios which may have to boost power to make a connection depending on how crappy the signal strength is. All in all I've been pleasantly surprised with how long my original iPad still holds up after two years of use.
Pleasantly surprised? I'm bloody amazed that my iPad 1 still lasts 10 hours. Having gone through countless PC laptop batteries over the years (3 months on HP) I'm also amazed that my 2010 MacBook can still power through upto 6 hours or more (8GB ram, hybrid). Apple have really made great progress in batteries, let's hope they keep it up.
Predictions for the future
Solar panel on iPad (we all have to go green)
The shake pad (shake to charge) anyone seem those torches that you shake to charge?
It will have 0 thickness, because we won't be using iPads in 10 years.
That's from the same episode where the 'Shut up and take my money!" meme comes from.
Something like that maybe, but who can predict the future exactly?
But I do think tech advances feed off each other, leading to exponential growth, so there will be a lot more change over the next 10 years than in the previous 10, which is why I suggested some kind of body mounted device replacing the iPad by then. Hopefully an Apple device, if they continue to take miniaturisation seriously after Steve.
Something like that maybe, but who can predict the future exactly?
But I do think tech advances feed off each other, leading to exponential growth, so there will be a lot more change over the next 10 years than in the previous 10, which is why I suggested some kind of body mounted device replacing the iPad by then. Hopefully an Apple device, if they continue to take miniaturisation seriously after Steve.
That is the trend but I think we'll see our devices working with wearable accessories first. Right now Nike Fuel Band seems to be the coolest solution in that genre.
Here is a clip of that scene. It lampoons Apple a bit with is always fun.
Great video from Joshua at The Verge:
LTE is spectacular.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y9Oy6...e_gdata_player
Great speed coupled with crippling data caps and absurd cost per gigabyte.
It's restricted by the carriers...
Really?! Then how come Tango and other work over cellular then? It is not technical issue. FaceTime was hacked to work over 3G with jailbreaking the first day it came out. I believe the issue is video quality over 3G.
Isn't it interesting that a company so obsessed with thinness would neglect that obsession for the sake of battery life? To me, this proves Apple cares about user experience and lays to rest the idea that Apple chooses form over function.
Many others would have chosen thinness at the cost of battery life.
Think different.
Apple has ALWAYS cared about user experience rather than specs. They increased the thickness of the iPhone 4, as well.
I guess my arms will have to get 8% stronger...
Then you should be sending Apple a thank you note for their exercise program.
Seriously, it absolutely amazes me how people will complain about an extra ounce or so in weight. Are we Americans really that helpless and flabby?
I've looked over all the reviews (and there are lots) and I have come to one conclusion:
Apple must have spent a fortune to be able to bribe every journalist to say the same thing - that the Retina Display is incredible and the iPad is still the tablet to beat.
Or maybe the Retina Display really is incredible and the iPad is still the tablet to beat - and the reporters simply reported the facts.
... sounds great, but given that I rarely ever even get 3G speeds on this iPad 2 (AT&T) here, it's really not a selling point. I am sure the display is spectacular, but I don't even appreciate the retina display on my iPhone 4s compared to earlier iPhones, so it's not for me. I hope Apple can keep up their sales momentum, because while the update from iPad 1 to 2 was a slam dunk for me, this seems a little more questionable. Added weight (albeit small) and some reduction in battery life are not helping either.
Sent via AT&T Edge
I feel exactly the opposite. I didn't even consider the iPad2 but now it's time to upgrade. Actually this is the first time I haven't sold my older Apple product to fund a new purchase. My family uses my iPad so much we're just going to keep it. We're a two iPad family now.
I've looked over all the reviews (and there are lots) and I have come to one conclusion:
Apple must have spent a fortune to be able to bribe every journalist to say the same thing - that the Retina Display is incredible and the iPad is still the tablet to beat.
That's right, they bribed every journalist. It couldn't be that the product is actually really good. Keep reaching.
I guess my arms will have to get 8% stronger...
I hope the iPad 2 was not stretching your muscles to their limit :-)
The first change I see, is that under Steve Jobs, Apple would have likely priced the new iPad at $579 or $599 - claiming that this radical new screen never before seen in any mobile device and LTE with whole day battery life was a steal at $579. I remember the iPhone launch - when Apple said this device combines a phone, iPod and internet browser - and even if you paid $200 for each, it would work out $599! Pricing the new iPad at $499 is mind boggling in several ways. Considering that Samsung is the only vendor that has managed to meet Apple's specs, it is very likely that Apple will be supply constrained for a long time. They are easily missing out on an additional $80 to $100 on each device. Very few people would have complained, and even those who complained would have happily paid up for this device.
The second change is in making the device slightly heavier and bigger - to keep battery life high, and still support Apple. Very likely Apple under Steve would have declared LTE to be not yet meeting Apple's requirements for battery life, and not yet fully deployed across the US and across the world, so at this point in time, LTE is a meaningless spec. Apple would have likely given up on LTE if they could keep the weight and size down to iPad 2 levels. This is a major shift in Apple's mentality - when a compromise has to be made, Apple is ready to make the compromise, without compromising on usability.
The new Apple will be even harder to compete against - Steve Jobs for all his skills and magic, still left some flanks open - either by pricing his products high, or by skipping on some of the latest features that were not yet fully ready for prime time. The new Apple is not leaving those flanks open - how on earth is the competition going to survive against this Apple!
The Apple under Steve was a "we are pricey, but we don't really want to serve 100% of the market anyway - if you think we are too pricey, you are welcome to buy crap from the competition". The Apple under Tim Cook seems to be following a totally different approach. Price the product cheap, go for marketshare and momentum, leverage every possible strength to improve margins despite pricing the product at levels the competition just cannot meet.
I think (not sure yet) that Tim Cook's Apple will be a lot more successful. Steve's influence was essential in taking Apple to the levels it reached, but once Apple reached where it is today, it is Tim Cook magic that will keep it running.
Because there is no point having the best product in the world - if you can't make nearly enough of it!
Steve Jobs created a lot of magic - but in some ways, what Tim Cook is pulling off is also quite magical. Some day, we will read about how Apple revolutionized the logistics business, till then Tim Cook will remain an unsung hero.
I'm ready to hear Nvidia's review of the new iPad... They claimed that they are eager to test Apple's claims:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/3/7/285...apple-a5x-test
We saw what happened with the iPad 2:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5163/a...gra-3-review/3
thanks for that December link. don't you wonder why all the spec-heads who endlessly tout Android devices' paper specs compared to iPad/iPhone never talk about actual test results? you'd think they would dote on techie stuff like that. can't think of why ...
its wonderful to watch the battery go dead on that big ole screen with 4g turned on....
my thoughts on big screens: watching vids? very nice. use with one hand? tricky, clumsy.
i really don't see apple going much (if at all) beyond a 4.
4 is the sweet spot for having large screen and still be able to use comfortably.
[edit] sorry a little off topic there.
Some of the details of the iPad announcement signify a shift in Apple's thinking. And I am not sure yet, but I think this could be a massive change in mentality for Apple. Whether it is better in the long run or not, only time will tell.
The first change I see, is that under Steve Jobs, Apple would have likely priced the new iPad at $579 or $599 - claiming that this radical new screen never before seen in any mobile device and LTE with whole day battery life was a steal at $579. I remember the iPhone launch - when Apple said this device combines a phone, iPod and internet browser - and even if you paid $200 for each, it would work out $599! Pricing the new iPad at $499 is mind boggling in several ways. Considering that Samsung is the only vendor that has managed to meet Apple's specs, it is very likely that Apple will be supply constrained for a long time. They are easily missing out on an additional $80 to $100 on each device. Very few people would have complained, and even those who complained would have happily paid up for this device.
The second change is in making the device slightly heavier and bigger - to keep battery life high, and still support Apple. Very likely Apple under Steve would have declared LTE to be not yet meeting Apple's requirements for battery life, and not yet fully deployed across the US and across the world, so at this point in time, LTE is a meaningless spec. Apple would have likely given up on LTE if they could keep the weight and size down to iPad 2 levels. This is a major shift in Apple's mentality - when a compromise has to be made, Apple is ready to make the compromise, without compromising on usability.
The new Apple will be even harder to compete against - Steve Jobs for all his skills and magic, still left some flanks open - either by pricing his products high, or by skipping on some of the latest features that were not yet fully ready for prime time. The new Apple is not leaving those flanks open - how on earth is the competition going to survive against this Apple!
The Apple under Steve was a "we are pricey, but we don't really want to serve 100% of the market anyway - if you think we are too pricey, you are welcome to buy crap from the competition". The Apple under Tim Cook seems to be following a totally different approach. Price the product cheap, go for marketshare and momentum, leverage every possible strength to improve margins despite pricing the product at levels the competition just cannot meet.
I think (not sure yet) that Tim Cook's Apple will be a lot more successful. Steve's influence was essential in taking Apple to the levels it reached, but once Apple reached where it is today, it is Tim Cook magic that will keep it running.
Because there is no point having the best product in the world - if you can't make nearly enough of it!
Steve Jobs created a lot of magic - but in some ways, what Tim Cook is pulling off is also quite magical. Some day, we will read about how Apple revolutionized the logistics business, till then Tim Cook will remain an unsung hero.
I don't buy your logic.
For the first argument, Apple has been adding features to its new devices while maintaining the same price point for years. In fact, that's the way they always work - add new features, but keep the price the same.
Second argument is equally weak. Apple made iPhone 4 heaver than iPhone 3GS to add capability. I don't think that's the only time, either.
I don't buy your logic.
For the first argument, Apple has been adding features to its new devices while maintaining the same price point for years. In fact, that's the way they always work - add new features, but keep the price the same.
Second argument is equally weak. Apple made iPhone 4 heaver than iPhone 3GS to add capability. I don't think that's the only time, either.
Maybe when you are in the US you don't realize the price increase from the 3GS to the 4 and 4S -because your carriers just absorb a slightly higher subsidy. But in the rest of the world, it is quite visible how much Apple has increased prices as the technology increased significantly from 3GS to the 4. Even in the US, the price of the iPod Touch went up from $199 to $229 when it moved to a retina display.
Yes - generally Apple has kept prices same and has added functionality - but this is usually just following Moore's law dynamics - when they can give you a better functionality for the same price after a period of time. Whenever Apple has given radically different technology, they have previously charged a premium for it.
When the MacMini became Unibody, the price was increased. There is no longer a $499 model around (unless you consider discounts from some online stores before a product refresh).
And frankly, the kind of upgrades other Apple products have had pale in comparison to the kind of upgrade the iPad just had. Don't underestimate how radical the new iPad is compared to the iPad 2. It is not just a case of the specs, but about how difficult it is to implement that spec in practice. This is a product no one was asking for (before the rumors began) - but when they see it, they will want it.
You have to admit, it's pretty stupid that the new iPad did not get an LED Flash to go along with the much improved camera!!!
no i don't. i don't know about you, but i use my iPad 2 camera quite a bit and speak from experience (do you?). close up snapshots where a flash would matter are the least likely use of the iPad camera. you really want to use your camera phone for those. the iPhone does a super job of course, and that is what i have with me at social events anyway where i take snaps under poor lighting conditions, not the iPad.
for stills, the iPad camera is most useful for wide angle type situations where the extra screen area comes in handy. as those are typically beyond flash range, it would be pointless.
mainly tho i use it for video with FaceTime. because then the large iPad screen is really great for viewing each other, and then i flip to the front camera to show what i'm looking at/talking about, which is really handy. again, here the wide field of vision is often better for that compared to a phone camera.
having 1080p video capture in the new iPad is nice, but the upgrade doesn't matter for FaceTime i think. that's one reason i haven't decided yet to upgrade to the new iPad. have to go look at one and see for myself if the new screen really knocks me out.
Isn't it interesting that a company so obsessed with thinness would neglect that obsession for the sake of battery life? To me, this proves Apple cares about user experience and lays to rest the idea that Apple chooses form over function.
Many others would have chosen thinness at the cost of battery life.
Think different.
Think, "it has to last a business day without recharging." That's apparently the gold standard for tablet battery life, according to Apple.
That is the attention to detail that other manufacturers aren't getting.
.tsooJ