- Last Active
So they’ll replace a soon-to-be 4 year-old chip that first appeared in 2018 iPhones with a 2 year-old chip that debuted in 2020… in 2023? And they call that caring about the product and moving it forward? That’s just laughable.
Is the Apple TV the designated product for chips they source from recaptured old phones? That’s the only justification I can think of other than extreme profiteering and taking their customers for idiots. I’m not buying an AppleTV that has a several-years-old chip even when it’s first launched. Seriously Apple, what gives?
You could say the A12 already handles video streaming functions at 4K, and it does, so why do you need anything more? But video streaming isn’t the only thing to consider. There’s also efficiency and as others have said the potential for gaming that is being left to flounder if not die off on the device completely.
Mike Wuerthele said:s.metcalf said:
To sum up, the headline should have better reflected the article: that this is an excellent and very capable device for the budget conscious, not that it’s best for “nearly everyone” because that’s an extremely blanket claim that is not true or justified by even the author’s own admission in the article!Here's another anecdote: of my family members aged 70 and older, all but one has the entry-level iPad of some sort from the last five years. One has an Amazon Fire. That's still not data, any more than your example is.
And in regards to the call to authority that you registered before Charles did, knock it off. You're reasonable given your post history, and you know full well that AI forum post count nor registration date means a single thing.
”Readers of this site aren’t average users”, which you both stated, has nothing to do with the validity of my points and is simply used as an attempt to downplay or discredit my qualification to make those points and opinions without targeting the points themselves. That is symptomatic of an inability to counter the arguments directly and is a very common strategy, intentionally or otherwise, when someone cannot defend their argument with sound facts or reasoning. When all else fails: attack and discredit the person is the logic that your comment follows. It’s extremely common in politics too, for obvious reasons.
I have further suspicions about the wildly positive “best for everyone” headline (I accidentally misquoted as “best for headline” there for a second) but I won’t go there, yet. I expect and come here for quality consumer-centric news and analysis and a headline that effectively says “almost everyone” should buy this base iPad in favour of the others doesn’t meet the standard of journalism I’m seeking from a tech reviewer, but is one that Apple would probably be happy with. They likely want people that can only afford or justify the base to feel like they’re getting the best when clearly they’re not. Lightning itself is probably (or hopefully) on the way out as well. The quality of life improvements I mentioned don’t just apply to that particular case either.
Certainly if you intend to push away long-time readers and contributors you’ve done a pretty good job of it. It’s not what this site needs right now, surely.
However, I think I’d prefer to get my Apple news, opinions and reviews from sources that are more objective and balanced and have fewer (or no) ties to Apple.
chasm said:s.metcalf said:How does the author reconcile the headline: "The best iPad for nearly everyone" with almost the entire content of this review? Clearly if it was the best for nearly everyone, hardly anyone would choose to buy the more expensive models.
Well, let’s consider:
1. This is by far the best selling model. Relative to the other models (with the exception of the mini), hardly anyone DOES choose to buy the more expensive models.
2. Most consumers buy iPads PRIMARILY as a passive-consumption device (surfing, light email/messaging, casual gaming, ebooks, videos, etc)
3. The “pro” buyer/active creator market in the tablet space is FAR smaller than you seem to think it is (just ask Microsoft!).
4. It is an inexpensive but tremendously versatile performer that can handle a very wide array of typical-use tasks — including pen, camera, video-call, keyboard/trackpad type work, photo editing, and much more — and will be supported for years to come, and useful for even more years,
5. It it HALF or less the cost of any other model other than the iPad mini, which is still significantly more expensive.
6. MOST PEOPLE buying new devices pick the entry-level or base model, and this is almost universally true across the technology world. The best selling model iPhone is, year after year, the non-pro and non-mini model.
I think you must be confusing “everyone” with “serious Mac/Apple ecosystem buyers,” whereas the review refers to “nearly everyone” as the general public — including people who use Windows, or have Android phones.
HTH!I’m not confusing anything, but thanks for your, uh, concern… ?
It’s a click-bait headline that doesn’t even match the content of the author’s own article. I was going to list quotes from the article that provide many examples of why this iPad isn’t for “nearly everyone” and as such contradict the headline, but I didn’t think that was necessary as it was plain to see. Evidently not.I’m a very long-term subscriber (longer than you) and I don’t think poor, inconsistent, unjustified and/or clickbait headlines are helping this site. “The best iPad for nearly everyone [who wants a new iPad and is budget conscious/constrained or wants one for the cheapest price]” is more accurate but less catchy and less click-bait-y.1. If you have any reliable data on sales breakdowns to back up your claim you should have posted it. Apple doesn’t provide these figures and I don’t think you have them either. I don’t either but I have logical reasons to believe that the rest of the iPad market is not minor, tiny or minuscule, nor is this the “best iPad for nearly everyone” even if it was. That title would probably go to the Air models. Apple would not have two product categories (Air and Pro) filling such a tiny (as you claim) niche.
2. Sure, but that doesn’t mean this is better or “the best” for those things. It is objectively not in many cases.
3. You don’t know what I think but what I do think is likely more accurate than this headline. Pro doesn’t stop the Pro iPhones being *very* popular. Plus there’s another whole iPad range in-between the Pros and this budget model that is also *very* popular.
4. It’s pretty good value for sure. I personally bought an M1 11” Pro for my elderly mother who uses it for basic “content consumption” and games because the quality of life improvements were easily worth the extra money, and then some.
5. As above.
6. The regular iPhone is more popular for sure reflecting that its features and look/feel have approached the Pro models for less and that iPhone prices have been steadily increasing (at least on the top end). The Pro iPhones are decidedly luxury, yet the Pro models do extremely well. The iPad market is different and I’ve no doubt that the Air and Pro markets combined is very significant proportionally to the base. Quite frankly, what the proportions are is unrelated from the point of a reviewer providing purchasing advice like “this is the best iPad for nearly everyone”, which is blatantly disingenuous and poor advice, in my opinion.
To sum up, the headline should have better reflected the article: that this is an excellent and very capable device for the budget conscious, not that it’s best for “nearly everyone” because that’s an extremely blanket claim that is not true or justified by even the author’s own admission in the article!