The 9.7-inch A9X iPad Pro has the same external dimensions as the iPad Air 2. At this time, it is not yet clear why Apple returned to the slightly thicker size for the new iPad.
I'd like to understand why Apple went with a thicker or deeper shell. If it was to house more battery that would be fine, but the battery life is the same as the Air 2.
I wonder if it's to further differentiate it from the 9.7" Pro, making the Pro more attractive. Schiller will tell Gruber or someone why they did it, and I hope it's solid reasoning. I doubt they had a bunch of leftover Air bodies and decided to 'use them up'.
We don't know yet either. We're working on it.
Ya do battery tests because even though every ipad generation stated 10-hours battery life, it was not true for many of them. iPad 2 32nm version's battery was around 15hours but they never reported it because it was too good and make the ipad 3 look worse than it already was.
Wow! Very disappointing news, indeed. I am so glad I picked up an Air 2, and literally just last week, at that! I went from a iPad 2 to the original Air and loved the thinness and lightness of it, but was disappointed in the plasticky feel of the screen (because of the slight gap/not laminated display.) So when the iPad Pro didn't seem right for me, I decided on the Air 2 and I love it! I'm so glad I bought it when I did
I think there is another shoes to drop. This can't be all there is, iPad sales have been declining as there hasn't been a real compelling reason to upgrade. Who knows, maybe somebody actually found the time to tip something into the other end of Timmeh's exciting product pipeline.
I think there is another shoes to drop. This can't be all there is. Who knows, maybe somebody actually found the time to tip something into the other end of Timmeh's exciting product pipeline.
That's what I stated yesterday. Typically when we see a soft release of some updated products that aren't worthy of an event (or possible worthy but on the edge), and still see a high rate of OS betas (and apps) being updated, there's usually a proper special event around the corner.
So we have a new 2017 iPad that's thicker by 1.4mm, 32g heavier, and uses a display prior to the 2014 iPad Air 2 it replaces.
It's it's hamstring by a faster A9 processor, 5.1WH greater capacity battery, and is $70 cheaper than the 2014 iPad it replaces.
How could Apple screw us over like this, with such an obviously inferior product. Oh the humanity!
I have an Air 2, use it regularly and like it a lot. But if I had a choice between this and the new iPad, I think I'd go with the new one. Battery life has never been a primary metric for me, so whether the iPad lives up to the claimed 10hrs or not, the faster A9 processor for $70 less in a no brainer. I don't know that I'd know the difference between the screens without a side-by-side comparison. Their both Retina, and that's good enough for me. But since I already have an A2, it'll probably be the 9.7" Pro next.
My Mini is a Mini 3, fairly new. I want Touch ID so I may have to grab a Mini 4 before they disappear.
I'm glad they went with the slightly thicker case in order to drop the price.
That is not why the price is lower. It is a lower price because they are using old components from the outdated iPad Air. Old display, old case, old parts, and old CPUs from the iPhone 6S. It would have been a nicer upgrade with the slightly lighter and thinner iPad Air 2 case, Air 2 display, and A9. Now they want to re-sell an iPad from 2013 and fool people into thinking it is 'new'. Now we are back to the 90s by re-using old parts for new stuff (just like the 62xx and 63xx Performa and Power Mac days).
The omission on RAM is interesting? Would it be the same 2mb as the Air2 or did they cut here to get cost down?
Seems this ipad is just a re-branded cost cutting product - with negligible or possibly worse performance than the Air2 that is thicker and weighs more. Leads me to believe this is more of an up-sell attempt to the pro than anything - using the long upgrade cycle as leveage.
Will be interesting to see the performance comparisons.
dude the Air2 has the A8, the new iPad has an A9
"Dude", you are wrong. The Air 2 has an A8X. All iPads have an X variant of the A chip which provides superior graphics capability. This is the first iPad using slower, and left over chips from the iPhone 6S.
Reason for thickness - look for the screen spec: http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/ It's screen isn't laminated to the glass and doesn't have the anti-reflective treatment found on the screen of every other iPad. The iPad Air 2, by comparison, had a fully-laminated screen, which removes a visible gap between the display and the glass cover
Yes, and for me that's a good thing. I'm going to be buying two of these to replace an iPad 2 and an iPad Air that my kids use. We've had to replace 3 screens over the years because kids are kids and they break things. Replacing the laminated screens is a lot more expensive and it's not a one-day turnaround for us. My kids really don't care about the very small increase in thickness, but I care a lot about the lower cost to repair.
Maybe your kids should stop using iPads since they have broken them 3 TIMES. Teach them to take care of things, or buy them much cheaper products. Or be a parent and supervise them while using an expensive device.
It is simple. Apple is recycling a bunch of old parts to make a 'new' product. Stop trying to sugar-coat the obvious. Old case, old display, old components, old camera, and an old iPhone CPU that is not even designed for the iPad (A9 instead of A9X)....what more do you need before you realize it is an old recycled iPad with mediocre parts? I guess they needed a way to clear out the old parts bin, which is why it got the 'quiet' press release announcement. That is why they can only call it 'iPad'. It is not an iPad Air, and it is not an iPad Air 2, and it is definitely not an iPad Air 3. Can you imagine that during a keynote? Here is our 2013 iPad with an old iPhone CPU crammed into it. We don't know what to call it, so we will call it iPad.
It is simple. Apple is recycling a bunch of old parts to make a 'new' product. Stop trying to sugar-coat the obvious. Old case, old display, old components, old camera, and an old iPhone CPU that is not even designed for the iPad (A9 instead of A9X)....what more do you need before you realize it is an old recycled iPad with mediocre parts? I guess they needed a way to clear out the old parts bin, which is why it got the 'quiet' press release announcement. That is why they can only call it 'iPad'. It is not an iPad Air, and it is not an iPad Air 2, and it is definitely not an iPad Air 3. Can you imagine that during a keynote? Here is our 2013 iPad with an old iPhone CPU crammed into it. We don't know what to call it, so we will call it iPad.
Why would Apple give you an iPad Pro for an iPad's price?
The 9.7-inch A9X iPad Pro has the same external dimensions as the iPad Air 2. At this time, it is not yet clear why Apple returned to the slightly thicker size for the new iPad.
I'd like to understand why Apple went with a thicker or deeper shell. If it was to house more battery that would be fine, but the battery life is the same as the Air 2.
I wonder if it's to further differentiate it from the 9.7" Pro, making the Pro more attractive. Schiller will tell Gruber or someone why they did it, and I hope it's solid reasoning. I doubt they had a bunch of leftover Air bodies and decided to 'use them up'.
We don't know yet either. We're working on it.
I think I remember reading that the screen size of the new 10inch iPad is supposed to increase slightly.. Do you think they could be working to add a touch bar to the bottom of Application when used with the keyboard? Thus leaving the regular size of apps the same.
The omission on RAM is interesting? Would it be the same 2mb as the Air2 or did they cut here to get cost down?
Seems this ipad is just a re-branded cost cutting product - with negligible or possibly worse performance than the Air2 that is thicker and weighs more. Leads me to believe this is more of an up-sell attempt to the pro than anything - using the long upgrade cycle as leveage.
Will be interesting to see the performance comparisons.
dude the Air2 has the A8, the new iPad has an A9
"Dude", you are wrong. The Air 2 has an A8X. All iPads have an X variant of the A chip which provides superior graphics capability. This is the first iPad using slower, and left over chips from the iPhone 6S.
Regardless of how you feel about recycled parts, the A9 outperforms the A8X in single-core performance, and is nearly identical on multicore. The A9 is also a more power-efficient processor.
Out of curiosity, how do you feel about the iPhone SE?
The omission on RAM is interesting? Would it be the same 2mb as the Air2 or did they cut here to get cost down?
Seems this ipad is just a re-branded cost cutting product - with negligible or possibly worse performance than the Air2 that is thicker and weighs more. Leads me to believe this is more of an up-sell attempt to the pro than anything - using the long upgrade cycle as leveage.
Will be interesting to see the performance comparisons.
dude the Air2 has the A8, the new iPad has an A9
"Dude", you are wrong. The Air 2 has an A8X. All iPads have an X variant of the A chip which provides superior graphics capability. This is the first iPad using slower, and left over chips from the iPhone 6S.
"At this time, it is not yet clear why Apple returned to the slightly thicker size for the new iPad."
It's clearly to set them up for a more substantial iPad Pro refresh later this year.
Considering form factor is rumoured to a key point of difference for the new iPad Pro models they can't have a cheaper model undercutting the more expensive models on features (like the iPad Air 2 did when the iPad Pro released with a protruding camera bump).
If they can do iPad Pro features in an Air 2 (or better) form factor then I'm sold.
It is simple. Apple is recycling a bunch of old parts to make a 'new' product. Stop trying to sugar-coat the obvious. Old case, old display, old components, old camera, and an old iPhone CPU that is not even designed for the iPad (A9 instead of A9X)....what more do you need before you realize it is an old recycled iPad with mediocre parts? I guess they needed a way to clear out the old parts bin, which is why it got the 'quiet' press release announcement. That is why they can only call it 'iPad'. It is not an iPad Air, and it is not an iPad Air 2, and it is definitely not an iPad Air 3. Can you imagine that during a keynote? Here is our 2013 iPad with an old iPhone CPU crammed into it. We don't know what to call it, so we will call it iPad.
Dude, why are you so bitter about a good-enough product at an attractive price? The so-called "outdated SoC - A9" has similar performance to the so-called "latest" tablet (with double the cost) from Samsung (Tab S3) which is yet to hit the shelves. What is the problem in putting a 1.5 year old SoC with "great" performance when it is priced accordingly? You must hate apple so much, that you are unable to compare the advantages of the latest ipad compared to similarly priced offerings from Android/Windows world. The latest iPad is FAR FAR superior to any similarly priced products right now (despite the usual IOS limitations and smaller RAM).
As an accessory maker this is great news, as it requires less tooling and require less models to make. I'm really happy and surprised Apple did this.
Our older model Moe Bull Stand should fit this new iPad perfectly!
An update that shows that display and top glass aren't laminated together, and yet I saw not one of the people that complained the other day about Apple making having a machine that will allow for Touch ID replacements say "I guess I was wrong, Apple doesn't want to make repairs more expensive across the board for customers while keeping 3rd-parties out."
Comments
It's it's hamstring by a faster A9 processor, 5.1WH greater capacity battery, and is $70 cheaper than the 2014 iPad it replaces.
How could Apple screw us over like this, with such an obviously inferior product. Oh the humanity!
I have an Air 2, use it regularly and like it a lot. But if I had a choice between this and the new iPad, I think I'd go with the new one. Battery life has never been a primary metric for me, so whether the iPad lives up to the claimed 10hrs or not, the faster A9 processor for $70 less in a no brainer. I don't know that I'd know the difference between the screens without a side-by-side comparison. Their both Retina, and that's good enough for me. But since I already have an A2, it'll probably be the 9.7" Pro next.
My Mini is a Mini 3, fairly new. I want Touch ID so I may have to grab a Mini 4 before they disappear.
That's funny.
If you want A9X buy an iPad Pro.
Now, let's hope for a thicker MacBook Pro next time!
It's clearly to set them up for a more substantial iPad Pro refresh later this year.
Considering form factor is rumoured to a key point of difference for the new iPad Pro models they can't have a cheaper model undercutting the more expensive models on features (like the iPad Air 2 did when the iPad Pro released with a protruding camera bump).
If they can do iPad Pro features in an Air 2 (or better) form factor then I'm sold.
Dude, why are you so bitter about a good-enough product at an attractive price? The so-called "outdated SoC - A9" has similar performance to the so-called "latest" tablet (with double the cost) from Samsung (Tab S3) which is yet to hit the shelves. What is the problem in putting a 1.5 year old SoC with "great" performance when it is priced accordingly? You must hate apple so much, that you are unable to compare the advantages of the latest ipad compared to similarly priced offerings from Android/Windows world. The latest iPad is FAR FAR superior to any similarly priced products right now (despite the usual IOS limitations and smaller RAM).
Our older model Moe Bull Stand should fit this new iPad perfectly!