I wouldn't consider the superior screen and camera a "minor deviation".
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I would, but the additional display size called for the higher res display and pixel density when going up, the stabilization in the camera doesn't seem to be so great that I can tell the difference without videos being side-by-side, and the battery does last longer but it has the additional volume. Don't forget that there are negatives, too, like size, weight, and downscaling. Add up I consider the pluses to be minor overall.
There is a tradeoff on the Plus screen, the contrast ratio is lower (1:1400 vs 1:1500). In reality, if the size of the Plus doesn't bother you than by all means, get it. I like the 6 because it fits in the same carpenter pockets my 4 did, it's still usable one-handed, and I got 64GB for the price of a 16GB Plus.
Also, it benchmarks faster. And that's really important. I want to have the fastest iOS device of its class every year. This last year I had the Air, the top dog iPad. Now I have the 6, the top dog iPhone.
Last part is only semi-serious. It's a techie thing.
Yeah, I think that was a boob to bring out the iPad 4 like that. It was Apple saying that the iPad 3 wasn't quite what it should have been. So I don't think they should spring a bigger one on us in 6 months time, at least not without warning us this week.
Are you really that dense? No, it wasn't a "boob". It was the result of them shifting the release schedule of the iPad to the fall. So, they could have decided to go a full 18 MONTHS with no new iPad, OR the most logical route, which is release a minor bump 6 months later, then again 12 months later.
There's also the not so small detail that they introduced the iPad mini that fall. It would have been idiocy not to also have a full sized iPad update at the same time, because the mini would then get ALL the attention, especially because of the much lower price point. There's also the issue of wanting to get rid of the 30pin connector. If a reasonable, fair minded person looked at all the possibilities in terms of what they could have handled shifting the iPad release, its not a stretch to state that they took the route that made the MOST sense, all things considered. The situation was unique, and an outlier. And if Apple decides to spring a larger one next year, there's no problem with that. Would be cool to have a new iProduct during the usual "dead' zone, which is anytime besides the fall.
Whats the worst case scenario? That you buy an Air 2, enjoy it for every day for several months, and then sell it when a larger iPad gets released, probably losing very little money? Apple products retain their value. Oh, the horror! Whatever they release this month will be a ridiculous update over what you currently have. I would advise you to buy it, enjoy it, and not constantly worry and bitch about what might or might not get released next- but I know you're utterly incapable of doing that.
I would, but the additional display size called for the higher res display and pixel density when going up, the stabilization in the camera doesn't seem to be so great that I can tell the difference without videos being side-by-side, and the battery does last longer but it has the additional volume. Don't forget that there are negatives, too, like size, weight, and downscaling. Add up I consider the pluses to be minor overall.
There is a tradeoff on the Plus screen, the contrast ratio is lower (1:1400 vs 1:1500). In reality, if the size of the Plus doesn't bother you than by all means, get it. I like the 6 because it fits in the same carpenter pockets my 4 did, it's still usable one-handed, and I got 64GB for the price of a 16GB Plus.
Also, it benchmarks faster. And that's really important. I want to have the fastest iOS device of its class every year. This last year I had the Air, the top dog iPad. Now I have the 6, the top dog iPhone.
Last part is only semi-serious. It's a techie thing.
Yes.
I compared the 6 and 6 Plus in an Apple Store, and preferred the screen of the 6. They both seemed about the same sharpness, but the 6 was more vivid; the 6 Plus was slightly hazy in comparison. They were both at full brightness.
Not sure what you mean by "changing the size of the elements"? And I don't see how it would be deviating from their point system, which exist precisely so they don't have to change the point size of elements if they increase the screen density.
If Apple goes with 3x at 396/401 PPI on the iPad air 2 , a 40 points button will still appear the same size on the display. It would be essentially the same thing as the original 1x->2x transition, as the resolution and density would increase by the same factor.
1) The original iPad is 132 PPI so to go to 264 for the iPad 3 the PPI s 264 which is 2x. That means 396 PPI for 3x, not 401 for exactly the same size for a 9.7" display. So how can the same 40 points be at both 396 PPI and 401 PPI and exact same size without the display size changing?
2) Can they feasibly do 3072 × 2304 for over 7 million pixels? Maybe, but that's nearly 50%(?) more than a 15" Retina MBP and about 2.5x(?) more than the iPhone 6 Plus if it would have gotten an actual 3x display at 2208 × 1242, and not 1920 × 1080. My guess is they'll stick with 264 PPI for the 9.7" iPad.
You must live in a cave if you think that's all that people use iPads for.
At first I thought that's what the commenter was saying, but I think it's more like they are arguing that the general use case for many people is web browsing and email with games which is probably true. For most people what they have is "good enough" so Apple is adding value to get people to switch.
At first I thought that's what the commenter was saying, but I think it's more like they are arguing that the general use case for many people is web browsing and email with games which is probably true. For most people what they have is "good enough" so Apple is adding value to get people to switch.
You mentioned games, and that's especially one area where a big difference will be seen. Who doesn't want to play to games with better graphics and a much higher FPS? Generally speaking, everything will be better, including stuff like browsing. I also believe that Touch ID is a big feature to be included on an iPad for the first time.
Of course some people will still be content with their older iPads and they wont be upgrading just yet, but I think that the new iPads are going to sell like hotcakes, just like the new iPhones are. More and more apps and games are coming out where they cut out the earlier models, because they're simply not powerful enough, and these people will eventually have to upgrade.
Thank God, about fucking time, I'm defiantly buying two. It's a real shame no one here is going to buy one though, you know with that whole anything above 1GB destroys battery life, kills children in far off lands, causes plague and locust to poor down from the heavens, etc.
I noticed my current iPad Air has stuttering issues, and a few snags here and there. Stuff you usually see on Android. Here's to hoping that going back to the X brand chips solve that.
If you are running iOS 8 blame the operating system. It gets a bit better in iOS 8.1 but I'm left with the imroession Apple has lost all sense of quality control with its software. Faster hardware will mask that somewhat but then you have to consider what happens if all of those pixels arrive.
"Leaked" iPhone 6 motherboards also showed 2GB. Glad if this is true though. My iPad with 1GB RAM boots apps out of memory way faster than my Android phone with 2GB. People can say iOS is lighter all they want, and it may be true, but it's not enough to make up for double or triple the physical memory.
I'm more concerned about the performance of apps once they are in RAM. An upgrade to two GB should improve iPad significantly due to the fact that apps only get a portion of the current 1GB of RAM. More that 2GB would be nice too but I doubt we will get that.
My guess is the A8X has the GX6650 instead of the GX6450, the extra cores will help drive the higher resolution. I'd also expect it to be clocked at 1.5GHz.
The extra cores would do wonders for iPad even if the resolution remains the same. Performance is iPads weakest point and anything Apple can do to improve it would be welcomed. However we also need balance between GPU and CPUS performance.
For CPUS performance I'm not sure which is the best avenue for Apple to follow. Quad cores would be nice and the ARM cores are so small it probably is a snap for Apple to do. However single core performance is very very important still. So I'm torn between quad cores and cores running at 2.1 GHz. Before anybody laughs 2GHz 64 bit ARM cores are the norm these days.
Re: the above, I'd love to see the original Mini at $199. I would wait for a BF deal and snap one of those up, I want a smaller iPad for reading.
I have zero interest in the Mini at this point.
Oh, and they should bring back the fourth fold in the Smart Cover/Case.
Some times I wish that Apple would mold in impact protection so that I would have more confidence with respect to use of just the cover. I doubt that would happen due to appearances.
My guess is that with an A8 , 2Gbs Ram and fingerprint sensor many people will still not upgrade and iPad sales will continue to dissapoint.
IPad sales aren't really tied to upgrades. Further you can hardly call sales disappointing when they out see all of Apples Macs per quarter.
.
Afterall many people only use iPads to read content beit emails, texts, Safari. Magazines and Newspapers and there isn't any need for any speed upgrade when it come to those.
Honestly the performance of Safari is pretty bad on iPad. Part of that is the constant reloads part of it is the time it takes to render a page and part is due to the pixels. So in that regard you are simply wrong. Much the same applies to complex PDFs, where iPad performance or the lack there of can be very noticeable.
Honestly I'm not sure where the idea that iPads perform well comes from. Sure they are the best tablets out there but compared to a Mac Book or desktop they are sluggish machines.
1) The original iPad is 132 PPI so to go to 264 for the iPad 3 the PPI s 264 which is 2x. That means 396 PPI for 3x, not 401 for exactly the same size for a 9.7" display. So how can the same 40 points be at both 396 PPI and 401 PPI and exact same size without the display size changing?
2) Can they feasibly do 3072 × 2304 for over 7 million pixels? Maybe, but that's nearly 50%(?) more than a 15" Retina MBP and about 2.5x(?) more than the iPhone 6 Plus if it would have gotten an actual 3x display at 2208 × 1242, and not 1920 × 1080. My guess is they'll stick with 264 PPI for the 9.7" iPad.
Ok I get what you mean now.
1) The difference between 396 and 401 PPI is very small. The screen (and UI elements) would be 98.7% the size of the current iPads. I don't see how it could be a problem. Developers wouldn't have to take this into account and Apple is redesigning the casing anyway.
2) You may be right that they will stick to 264 PPI, and I would personally prefer it since it would be an overkill I think. I'm just puzzled by the need for a A8X chip in the Air 2.
At first I thought that's what the commenter was saying, but I think it's more like they are arguing that the general use case for many people is web browsing and email with games which is probably true. For most people what they have is "good enough" so Apple is adding value to get people to switch.
This is the thing they aren't good enough which is where the demands for more RAM and other improvements come from.
Thank God, about fucking time, I'm defiantly buying two. It's a real shame no one here is going to buy one though, you know with that whole anything above 1GB destroys battery life, kills children in far off lands, causes plague and locust to poor down from the heavens, etc.
At first I was wondering if your mess where a little too strong today. Then I realized you are right on target with this comment. You really have to wonder about all the idiots posting that don't want Apple to improve their hardware. I honestly thought that England dealt with the Luddites long ago.
I'm just puzzled by the need for a A8X chip in the Air 2.
There are rumours that Apple costumes so much RAM that they simply couldn't afford to put double the RAM in every iPhone. But this might not be an issue since they sell so few iPads than iPhones per quarter. Plus, the larger size of the display with more pixels does mean that it needs more RAM and a more powerful GPU to have the same relative performance as the iPhone.
For those reasons I can see A8X being introduced into the iPad. Plus, with the iPhone being such a powerful product for Apple and the iPad seemingly have hit a plateau in sales after being their fastest growing product in history, it might simply be a marketing tool to bring back the A*X designation, especially now that the iPhone 6 Plus might make people think it's too similar to the iPad mini.
Thank God, about fucking time, I'm defiantly buying two. It's a real shame no one here is going to buy one though, you know with that whole anything above 1GB destroys battery life, kills children in far off lands, causes plague and locust to poor down from the heavens, etc.
You forgot ebola. Please don't forget that more ram causes ebola to happen.
Comments
I wouldn't consider the superior screen and camera a "minor deviation".
I would, but the additional display size called for the higher res display and pixel density when going up, the stabilization in the camera doesn't seem to be so great that I can tell the difference without videos being side-by-side, and the battery does last longer but it has the additional volume. Don't forget that there are negatives, too, like size, weight, and downscaling. Add up I consider the pluses to be minor overall.
There is a tradeoff on the Plus screen, the contrast ratio is lower (1:1400 vs 1:1500). In reality, if the size of the Plus doesn't bother you than by all means, get it. I like the 6 because it fits in the same carpenter pockets my 4 did, it's still usable one-handed, and I got 64GB for the price of a 16GB Plus.
Also, it benchmarks faster. And that's really important. I want to have the fastest iOS device of its class every year. This last year I had the Air, the top dog iPad. Now I have the 6, the top dog iPhone.
Last part is only semi-serious. It's a techie thing.
Yeah, I think that was a boob to bring out the iPad 4 like that. It was Apple saying that the iPad 3 wasn't quite what it should have been. So I don't think they should spring a bigger one on us in 6 months time, at least not without warning us this week.
Are you really that dense? No, it wasn't a "boob". It was the result of them shifting the release schedule of the iPad to the fall. So, they could have decided to go a full 18 MONTHS with no new iPad, OR the most logical route, which is release a minor bump 6 months later, then again 12 months later.
There's also the not so small detail that they introduced the iPad mini that fall. It would have been idiocy not to also have a full sized iPad update at the same time, because the mini would then get ALL the attention, especially because of the much lower price point. There's also the issue of wanting to get rid of the 30pin connector. If a reasonable, fair minded person looked at all the possibilities in terms of what they could have handled shifting the iPad release, its not a stretch to state that they took the route that made the MOST sense, all things considered. The situation was unique, and an outlier. And if Apple decides to spring a larger one next year, there's no problem with that. Would be cool to have a new iProduct during the usual "dead' zone, which is anytime besides the fall.
Whats the worst case scenario? That you buy an Air 2, enjoy it for every day for several months, and then sell it when a larger iPad gets released, probably losing very little money? Apple products retain their value. Oh, the horror! Whatever they release this month will be a ridiculous update over what you currently have. I would advise you to buy it, enjoy it, and not constantly worry and bitch about what might or might not get released next- but I know you're utterly incapable of doing that.
Yes.
I compared the 6 and 6 Plus in an Apple Store, and preferred the screen of the 6. They both seemed about the same sharpness, but the 6 was more vivid; the 6 Plus was slightly hazy in comparison. They were both at full brightness.
1) The original iPad is 132 PPI so to go to 264 for the iPad 3 the PPI s 264 which is 2x. That means 396 PPI for 3x, not 401 for exactly the same size for a 9.7" display. So how can the same 40 points be at both 396 PPI and 401 PPI and exact same size without the display size changing?
2) Can they feasibly do 3072 × 2304 for over 7 million pixels? Maybe, but that's nearly 50%(?) more than a 15" Retina MBP and about 2.5x(?) more than the iPhone 6 Plus if it would have gotten an actual 3x display at 2208 × 1242, and not 1920 × 1080. My guess is they'll stick with 264 PPI for the 9.7" iPad.
At first I thought that's what the commenter was saying, but I think it's more like they are arguing that the general use case for many people is web browsing and email with games which is probably true. For most people what they have is "good enough" so Apple is adding value to get people to switch.
At first I thought that's what the commenter was saying, but I think it's more like they are arguing that the general use case for many people is web browsing and email with games which is probably true. For most people what they have is "good enough" so Apple is adding value to get people to switch.
You mentioned games, and that's especially one area where a big difference will be seen. Who doesn't want to play to games with better graphics and a much higher FPS? Generally speaking, everything will be better, including stuff like browsing. I also believe that Touch ID is a big feature to be included on an iPad for the first time.
Of course some people will still be content with their older iPads and they wont be upgrading just yet, but I think that the new iPads are going to sell like hotcakes, just like the new iPhones are. More and more apps and games are coming out where they cut out the earlier models, because they're simply not powerful enough, and these people will eventually have to upgrade.
Thank God, about fucking time, I'm defiantly buying two. It's a real shame no one here is going to buy one though, you know with that whole anything above 1GB destroys battery life, kills children in far off lands, causes plague and locust to poor down from the heavens, etc.
So will I. IPad need significantly better performance, more than it needs a lot of extra pixels I can't see.
If you are running iOS 8 blame the operating system. It gets a bit better in iOS 8.1 but I'm left with the imroession Apple has lost all sense of quality control with its software. Faster hardware will mask that somewhat but then you have to consider what happens if all of those pixels arrive.
I'm more concerned about the performance of apps once they are in RAM. An upgrade to two GB should improve iPad significantly due to the fact that apps only get a portion of the current 1GB of RAM. More that 2GB would be nice too but I doubt we will get that.
For CPUS performance I'm not sure which is the best avenue for Apple to follow. Quad cores would be nice and the ARM cores are so small it probably is a snap for Apple to do. However single core performance is very very important still. So I'm torn between quad cores and cores running at 2.1 GHz. Before anybody laughs 2GHz 64 bit ARM cores are the norm these days. I have zero interest in the Mini at this point.
Some times I wish that Apple would mold in impact protection so that I would have more confidence with respect to use of just the cover. I doubt that would happen due to appearances.
Honestly the performance of Safari is pretty bad on iPad. Part of that is the constant reloads part of it is the time it takes to render a page and part is due to the pixels. So in that regard you are simply wrong. Much the same applies to complex PDFs, where iPad performance or the lack there of can be very noticeable.
Honestly I'm not sure where the idea that iPads perform well comes from. Sure they are the best tablets out there but compared to a Mac Book or desktop they are sluggish machines.
Not at all! IPad should always be shipping with more RAM than the cell phone. This do to the apps and pixel demands of the platform.
1) The original iPad is 132 PPI so to go to 264 for the iPad 3 the PPI s 264 which is 2x. That means 396 PPI for 3x, not 401 for exactly the same size for a 9.7" display. So how can the same 40 points be at both 396 PPI and 401 PPI and exact same size without the display size changing?
2) Can they feasibly do 3072 × 2304 for over 7 million pixels? Maybe, but that's nearly 50%(?) more than a 15" Retina MBP and about 2.5x(?) more than the iPhone 6 Plus if it would have gotten an actual 3x display at 2208 × 1242, and not 1920 × 1080. My guess is they'll stick with 264 PPI for the 9.7" iPad.
Ok I get what you mean now.
1) The difference between 396 and 401 PPI is very small. The screen (and UI elements) would be 98.7% the size of the current iPads. I don't see how it could be a problem. Developers wouldn't have to take this into account and Apple is redesigning the casing anyway.
2) You may be right that they will stick to 264 PPI, and I would personally prefer it since it would be an overkill I think. I'm just puzzled by the need for a A8X chip in the Air 2.
8.1 is only somewhat better. Personally I think Apple really dropped the ball with 8.x, hopefully 8.2 will target robustness and bug fixes.
This is the thing they aren't good enough which is where the demands for more RAM and other improvements come from.
At first I was wondering if your mess where a little too strong today. Then I realized you are right on target with this comment. You really have to wonder about all the idiots posting that don't want Apple to improve their hardware. I honestly thought that England dealt with the Luddites long ago.
There are rumours that Apple costumes so much RAM that they simply couldn't afford to put double the RAM in every iPhone. But this might not be an issue since they sell so few iPads than iPhones per quarter. Plus, the larger size of the display with more pixels does mean that it needs more RAM and a more powerful GPU to have the same relative performance as the iPhone.
For those reasons I can see A8X being introduced into the iPad. Plus, with the iPhone being such a powerful product for Apple and the iPad seemingly have hit a plateau in sales after being their fastest growing product in history, it might simply be a marketing tool to bring back the A*X designation, especially now that the iPhone 6 Plus might make people think it's too similar to the iPad mini.
Thank God, about fucking time, I'm defiantly buying two. It's a real shame no one here is going to buy one though, you know with that whole anything above 1GB destroys battery life, kills children in far off lands, causes plague and locust to poor down from the heavens, etc.
You forgot ebola. Please don't forget that more ram causes ebola to happen.
True story.