So far (nothing "official"), the iPad seems to have 256 MB RAM, the same as the iPhone 3GS. I must assume the A4's GPU is powerful enough that it is not an issue handling the larger screen.
Haha I have a phone that has as much memory as iPad!
I totally agree. I used the video camera on my MBP for maybe a couple of months of goofing around (literally "look mom, we can see each other over the Internet! It's like Star Trek!", and then it just became tedious.
I think the iPad would be even worse in this regard. Exactly how are you supposed to hold the thing when video conferencing? I don't think it's realistic to grab it by both hands and hold it out in front of your face for half an hour. And I don't want to be staring up somebody's nose because they've got it in their lap.
As for taking video, the iPhone is a much more convenient form factor for that.
So I chalk this up to another case of people being focused on inputs rather than outputs. People know that a video camera is something that could be in the device, it's not there, so they complain. But they aren't thinking about whether it really makes sense to have it. Having said that, I know that there are a ton of very creative developers out there, so perhaps one day somebody will come up with a great practical idea for using the camera. But until I hear about an actual example of such an idea that isn't targeted at a very narrow niche market, I'm going to conclude that Apple made the right call here.
I agree as well. I have no desire at all to web conference from my iPad. The viewing angle would make it look odd. I don't understand why people aren't mentioning the possibility of an external camera. There is already an attachment which allows you to connect your camera to the device. If I were apple I would sell a small external USB or Bluetooth camera. You could position the external camera at angles appropriate for video capturing. Thus leaving the iPad free to position at an angle which optimizes viewing the screen and the images of the person to whom you are video chatting. I don't know why more people aren't thinking of this as a possibility. Apple had the iSight camera well before they started embedding the cameras in the monitor, they've done it before.
I agree as well. I have no desire at all to web conference from my iPad. The viewing angle would make it look odd. I don't understand why people aren't mentioning the possibility of an external camera. There is already an attachment which allows you to connect your camera to the device. If I were apple I would sell a small external USB or Bluetooth camera. You could position the external camera at angles appropriate for video capturing. Thus leaving the iPad free to position at an angle which optimizes viewing the screen and the images of the person to whom you are video chatting. I don't know why more people aren't thinking of this as a possibility. Apple had the iSight camera well before they started embedding the cameras in the monitor, they've done it before.
I as well.
The problem with video conferencing is that most people don't realize that you have to look directly into the lens. Otherwise, it looks as if you are talking to somebody else. As such, it becomes frustratingly boring looking at an offset view.
To compound the issue, if you are looking directly into the lens, you can't truly see the person to whom you are conversing with.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
It's 256, not 512. How long before AI fixes this ridiculous mistake...doesn't anyone who write for this site have one? All you have to do is install Memory Info and bring it up to see what's available. I knew this thing has 256 mb at 930 yesterday morning.
I can't make amendments to the main article in the news section but I added the new information to the original thread post. The article writer will probably make some changes later on.
The problem with video conferencing is that most people don't realize that you have to look directly into the lens. Otherwise, it looks as if you are talking to somebody else. As such, it becomes frustratingly boring looking at an offset view.
To compound the issue, if you are looking directly into the lens, you can't truly see the person to whom you are conversing with.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
I'm reading you. An external camera would look like a kludge because of the eye contact issue. That being said I'd prefer a lack of eye contact to staring up someone's nose while chatting.
I know this isn't official, but 256Mb? That's really disappointing. In fact, this may be my first REAL disappointment w/ iPad... I was hoping for 1Gb, or at least the more realistic 512Mb, 256Mb seems to be a waste of processing power, this really limits the level of graphic detail games could have, not mention a decent overall speed boost.
Let's have the new Macbook Pro's, please. Or I'm going to abandon Apple.
I second that.
And yet, it would be so much nicer for us all if you'd have abandoned Apple and this forum before posting here. Seriously, though, see it from inside of Apple. The poor team that is going to release the laptops and desktops. How boring it must be to release another laptop upgrade while other teams are reshaping the computer industry. I bet they can't wait until things catch up in their space and they can innovate some form factors to facilitate multitouch screens as an option.
The small amount of memory is interesting. From using these apps, It's amazing how much you can do without the overhead of a monstrous OS.
++ on using the shiny Apple that way. I just thought it was a nice distinguishing style thing.
I know this isn't official, but 256Mb? That's really disappointing. In fact, this may be my first REAL disappointment w/ iPad... I was hoping for 1Gb, or at least the more realistic 512Mb, 256Mb seems to be a waste of processing power, this really limits the level of graphic detail games could have, not mention a decent overall speed boost.
The graphics in the games for iPad look pretty good to me. How much memory do the psp and ds have? I don't particularly care about the specs. I haven't noticed any lag while simultaneously downloading apps, listening to music and reading on my iPad. That's all I really care about, this thing isn't a laptop.
I know this isn't official, but 256Mb? That's really disappointing. In fact, this may be my first REAL disappointment w/ iPad... I was hoping for 1Gb, or at least the more realistic 512Mb, 256Mb seems to be a waste of processing power, this really limits the level of graphic detail games could have, not mention a decent overall speed boost.
The evidence and experience from game developers and now reviewers/users/experienced gamers does not support your contention at all.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
I disagree, some families are separated by huge geographical distances these days and video conferencing allows grandparents to see and interact with their grandchildren and is one of the experiences they look forward to most in life. While it's not perfect, it would be a hell of a lot easier to get a kid to stay focused on an iPad video-chat than at a desktop or laptop. They could even allow the child to interact with apps while on video so they could play a piano or read a book or finger-paint a picture of their grandparents and email it. The uses go beyond just video-chat too, as I said before, a kid could take a picture of themselves and use a photobooth app or costume app to play around with.
There's no sense in excusing the lack of features on a device by saying the features are useless anyway when Apple puts those same features on a huge number of other products. It's quite obvious that the focus here was on cost, which is why they went with lower RAM too. The compromise was to cut everything else down that adds to the production cost and make sure the focal point of the product (the display) is excellent quality as that's what people will judge it by.
If I was offered the choice between a 1GB RAM iPad with a webcam and a TN screen or a 256MB RAM iPad, no webcam and an IPS display, I'd take the latter any day. But while I have no use for the webcam, it's still a good feature to have and they could have gone with a cheaper one just to have the functionality. It's not as if they were struggling for space or anything.
I disagree, some families are separated by huge geographical distances these days and video conferencing allows grandparents to see and interact with their grandchildren and is one of the experiences they look forward to most in life. While it's not perfect, it would be a hell of a lot easier to get a kid to stay focused on an iPad video-chat than at a desktop or laptop. They could even allow the child to interact with apps while on video so they could play a piano or read a book or finger-paint a picture of their grandparents and email it. The uses go beyond just video-chat too, as I said before, a kid could take a picture of themselves and use a photobooth app or costume app to play around with.
There's no sense in excusing the lack of features on a device by saying the features are useless anyway when Apple puts those same features on a huge number of other products. It's quite obvious that the focus here was on cost, which is why they went with lower RAM too. The compromise was to cut everything else down that adds to the production cost and make sure the focal point of the product (the display) is excellent quality as that's what people will judge it by.
If I was offered the choice between a 1GB RAM iPad with a webcam and a TN screen or a 256MB RAM iPad, no webcam and an IPS display, I'd take the latter any day. But while I have no use for the webcam, it's still a good feature to have and they could have gone with a cheaper one just to have the functionality. It's not as if they were struggling for space or anything.
It is a given that someone would choose a device with superior hardware for the same price. It is my opinion that what they are attempting to do is hit a price point not minimize space. I find more things to agree with in your second paragraph. Folks contending that they wouldn't use a camera are excusing the lack of a camera. It makes sense that we would excuse the lack of this feature because we don't think we'd ever use it. I understand a lot of people really want to web chat on this device. I'm just not one of them. I would like more efficient multitasking for 3rd party applications though. Sign me up for that.
I now have both an iPhone and an iPad with 16 gb of storage, and 256 mb of RAM.
Guess what? Only one of them has a custom Apple A4 at the helm...
And only one of them has unbelievably fast, outstanding performance.
Interacting with this thing is really nothing like using the iPhone. I can't possibly explain how much of difference the large and responsive screen makes. It in itself is a new experience all together.
Wow. 512 MB of RAM would've been slightly disappointing, but we'd all just shake our heads and accept it because it was Apple. 256 MB is self-sabotage looking forward. And I must admit I'm a little irritated by all the trolls ? yes, trolls ? saying that every possible inadequacy in the iPad is automatically excused (and perhaps even a feature!) because its display happens to be bigger. Cameras aren't useless, or there wouldn't be one in the iPhone and numerous apps that take advantage of it in interesting ways. Multitasking has limited, specific, and legitimate use cases on a 9.7-inch tablet. Yes, the larger display does make it "a new experience altogether", which is why it's a shame that Apple disagrees.
You are mistaken afterall in quoting iFixit on 512MB of RAM since they've since changed their interpretation of 2Gb to refer to both RAM chips together for 256MB of RAM total. This reportedly matches software developer feedback finding available free memory on the iPad being similar to the iPhone 3GS.
The problem with video conferencing is that most people don't realize that you have to look directly into the lens. Otherwise, it looks as if you are talking to somebody else. As such, it becomes frustratingly boring looking at an offset view.
To compound the issue, if you are looking directly into the lens, you can't truly see the person to whom you are conversing with.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
I've used Skype for a while and I agree. As usual, Apple doesn't do it until they find a way to do it well enough. I mean yeah, the Macs of today still have this issue but they are starting from zero with this new platform. Webcam will be there only when they come up with something that blows your head.
In the mean time,everyone else settles for Dell or something.
Wow, that's rather surprising. How does this thing perform the way it does with so little RAM? I spent better than 6 hrs yesterday playing on my wife's iPad. I played games, watched movies, listened to music, and browsed many of my favorite sites - all without a single hiccup.
Could someone with a better understanding than I have, explain how this is even possible? I'm assuming it's the OS and perhaps the processor.
Comments
Thanks for the RAM information. I wish it had at last 1GB, thus being prepared for future multitasking via firmware update.
There is absolutely nothing in the RAM amount to suggest this or not, so please stop parroting this is nonsense.
Let's have the new Macbook Pro's, please. Or I'm going to abandon Apple.
I second that.
So far (nothing "official"), the iPad seems to have 256 MB RAM, the same as the iPhone 3GS. I must assume the A4's GPU is powerful enough that it is not an issue handling the larger screen.
Haha I have a phone that has as much memory as iPad!
I totally agree. I used the video camera on my MBP for maybe a couple of months of goofing around (literally "look mom, we can see each other over the Internet! It's like Star Trek!", and then it just became tedious.
I think the iPad would be even worse in this regard. Exactly how are you supposed to hold the thing when video conferencing? I don't think it's realistic to grab it by both hands and hold it out in front of your face for half an hour. And I don't want to be staring up somebody's nose because they've got it in their lap.
As for taking video, the iPhone is a much more convenient form factor for that.
So I chalk this up to another case of people being focused on inputs rather than outputs. People know that a video camera is something that could be in the device, it's not there, so they complain. But they aren't thinking about whether it really makes sense to have it. Having said that, I know that there are a ton of very creative developers out there, so perhaps one day somebody will come up with a great practical idea for using the camera. But until I hear about an actual example of such an idea that isn't targeted at a very narrow niche market, I'm going to conclude that Apple made the right call here.
I agree as well. I have no desire at all to web conference from my iPad. The viewing angle would make it look odd. I don't understand why people aren't mentioning the possibility of an external camera. There is already an attachment which allows you to connect your camera to the device. If I were apple I would sell a small external USB or Bluetooth camera. You could position the external camera at angles appropriate for video capturing. Thus leaving the iPad free to position at an angle which optimizes viewing the screen and the images of the person to whom you are video chatting. I don't know why more people aren't thinking of this as a possibility. Apple had the iSight camera well before they started embedding the cameras in the monitor, they've done it before.
<<put on your 3d glasses to see answer >>>
>♨♨RAGU♨♨<
OK smart guy. Perhaps you can point out where it (his link) states that, "[he] will be forced into a another 3 year long agreement."
BTW, when you quote someone, at least spell it out as written.
I agree as well. I have no desire at all to web conference from my iPad. The viewing angle would make it look odd. I don't understand why people aren't mentioning the possibility of an external camera. There is already an attachment which allows you to connect your camera to the device. If I were apple I would sell a small external USB or Bluetooth camera. You could position the external camera at angles appropriate for video capturing. Thus leaving the iPad free to position at an angle which optimizes viewing the screen and the images of the person to whom you are video chatting. I don't know why more people aren't thinking of this as a possibility. Apple had the iSight camera well before they started embedding the cameras in the monitor, they've done it before.
I as well.
The problem with video conferencing is that most people don't realize that you have to look directly into the lens. Otherwise, it looks as if you are talking to somebody else. As such, it becomes frustratingly boring looking at an offset view.
To compound the issue, if you are looking directly into the lens, you can't truly see the person to whom you are conversing with.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...d_display.html
It's 256, not 512. How long before AI fixes this ridiculous mistake...doesn't anyone who write for this site have one? All you have to do is install Memory Info and bring it up to see what's available. I knew this thing has 256 mb at 930 yesterday morning.
I can't make amendments to the main article in the news section but I added the new information to the original thread post. The article writer will probably make some changes later on.
I as well.
The problem with video conferencing is that most people don't realize that you have to look directly into the lens. Otherwise, it looks as if you are talking to somebody else. As such, it becomes frustratingly boring looking at an offset view.
To compound the issue, if you are looking directly into the lens, you can't truly see the person to whom you are conversing with.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...d_display.html
I'm reading you. An external camera would look like a kludge because of the eye contact issue. That being said I'd prefer a lack of eye contact to staring up someone's nose while chatting.
Let's have the new Macbook Pro's, please. Or I'm going to abandon Apple.
I second that.
And yet, it would be so much nicer for us all if you'd have abandoned Apple and this forum before posting here.
The small amount of memory is interesting. From using these apps, It's amazing how much you can do without the overhead of a monstrous OS.
++ on using the shiny Apple that way. I just thought it was a nice distinguishing style thing.
I know this isn't official, but 256Mb? That's really disappointing. In fact, this may be my first REAL disappointment w/ iPad... I was hoping for 1Gb, or at least the more realistic 512Mb, 256Mb seems to be a waste of processing power, this really limits the level of graphic detail games could have, not mention a decent overall speed boost.
The graphics in the games for iPad look pretty good to me. How much memory do the psp and ds have? I don't particularly care about the specs. I haven't noticed any lag while simultaneously downloading apps, listening to music and reading on my iPad. That's all I really care about, this thing isn't a laptop.
I know this isn't official, but 256Mb? That's really disappointing. In fact, this may be my first REAL disappointment w/ iPad... I was hoping for 1Gb, or at least the more realistic 512Mb, 256Mb seems to be a waste of processing power, this really limits the level of graphic detail games could have, not mention a decent overall speed boost.
The evidence and experience from game developers and now reviewers/users/experienced gamers does not support your contention at all.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
I disagree, some families are separated by huge geographical distances these days and video conferencing allows grandparents to see and interact with their grandchildren and is one of the experiences they look forward to most in life. While it's not perfect, it would be a hell of a lot easier to get a kid to stay focused on an iPad video-chat than at a desktop or laptop. They could even allow the child to interact with apps while on video so they could play a piano or read a book or finger-paint a picture of their grandparents and email it. The uses go beyond just video-chat too, as I said before, a kid could take a picture of themselves and use a photobooth app or costume app to play around with.
There's no sense in excusing the lack of features on a device by saying the features are useless anyway when Apple puts those same features on a huge number of other products. It's quite obvious that the focus here was on cost, which is why they went with lower RAM too. The compromise was to cut everything else down that adds to the production cost and make sure the focal point of the product (the display) is excellent quality as that's what people will judge it by.
If I was offered the choice between a 1GB RAM iPad with a webcam and a TN screen or a 256MB RAM iPad, no webcam and an IPS display, I'd take the latter any day. But while I have no use for the webcam, it's still a good feature to have and they could have gone with a cheaper one just to have the functionality. It's not as if they were struggling for space or anything.
I disagree, some families are separated by huge geographical distances these days and video conferencing allows grandparents to see and interact with their grandchildren and is one of the experiences they look forward to most in life. While it's not perfect, it would be a hell of a lot easier to get a kid to stay focused on an iPad video-chat than at a desktop or laptop. They could even allow the child to interact with apps while on video so they could play a piano or read a book or finger-paint a picture of their grandparents and email it. The uses go beyond just video-chat too, as I said before, a kid could take a picture of themselves and use a photobooth app or costume app to play around with.
There's no sense in excusing the lack of features on a device by saying the features are useless anyway when Apple puts those same features on a huge number of other products. It's quite obvious that the focus here was on cost, which is why they went with lower RAM too. The compromise was to cut everything else down that adds to the production cost and make sure the focal point of the product (the display) is excellent quality as that's what people will judge it by.
If I was offered the choice between a 1GB RAM iPad with a webcam and a TN screen or a 256MB RAM iPad, no webcam and an IPS display, I'd take the latter any day. But while I have no use for the webcam, it's still a good feature to have and they could have gone with a cheaper one just to have the functionality. It's not as if they were struggling for space or anything.
It is a given that someone would choose a device with superior hardware for the same price. It is my opinion that what they are attempting to do is hit a price point not minimize space. I find more things to agree with in your second paragraph. Folks contending that they wouldn't use a camera are excusing the lack of a camera. It makes sense that we would excuse the lack of this feature because we don't think we'd ever use it. I understand a lot of people really want to web chat on this device. I'm just not one of them. I would like more efficient multitasking for 3rd party applications though. Sign me up for that.
I now have both an iPhone and an iPad with 16 gb of storage, and 256 mb of RAM.
Guess what? Only one of them has a custom Apple A4 at the helm...
And only one of them has unbelievably fast, outstanding performance.
Interacting with this thing is really nothing like using the iPhone. I can't possibly explain how much of difference the large and responsive screen makes. It in itself is a new experience all together.
Let's have the new Macbook Pro's, please. Or I'm going to abandon Apple.
That is very harsh. Apple is busy. When the new MBPs appear, you'll be very happy. Trust me.
I as well.
The problem with video conferencing is that most people don't realize that you have to look directly into the lens. Otherwise, it looks as if you are talking to somebody else. As such, it becomes frustratingly boring looking at an offset view.
To compound the issue, if you are looking directly into the lens, you can't truly see the person to whom you are conversing with.
Until the lack of eye contact is resolved, as proposed for example in Apple's camera hidden behind display patent filing*, teleconferencing and video chatting will be a problem.
*http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...d_display.html
I've used Skype for a while and I agree. As usual, Apple doesn't do it until they find a way to do it well enough. I mean yeah, the Macs of today still have this issue but they are starting from zero with this new platform. Webcam will be there only when they come up with something that blows your head.
In the mean time,everyone else settles for Dell or something.
Could someone with a better understanding than I have, explain how this is even possible? I'm assuming it's the OS and perhaps the processor.