Only thing that changed on New IPad is the screen

A

Aumakua

Limp Gawd
Joined
Dec 14, 2009
Messages
333
assuming you get the wifi only version (and hey the LTE version depending on where you live isn't really an upgrade either), the only thing that appears to have changed is the screen resolution. Sure it has a bigger battery and a "quad core" GPU, but the CPU hasn't changed and lets face it the new GPU is needed to support the screen resolution increase (won't make anything faster than before, just look better) and the bigger battery is to offset the increased performance of the GPU (battery life is the same). So its all smoke and mirrors, its the same as the IPad 2 wifi except with better resolution, that is all that changed, am I wrong? oh yeah and it finally has a 5MP camera (not sure why they didn't just put the iphone 4S 8MP camera in there...).

I am not trying to be a troll or anything, in fact I am looking to buy an ipad, just trying to justify it! Especially because I don't see any version other than 64GB being worth it, why buy an ipad unless you put most of your photos, all of your music, and a few movies on it. My photos and music alone can take up 15-20GB (depending how many photos I upload). with apps the 32GB becomes the minimum, now the problem is with the new resolution and movies! can't store 1080p movies on it, you would be able to fit 1-2 movies and thats it. Really wish they offered a SD card slot or Micro SD slot but then they couldn't charge $100 extra per storage upgrade that costs them $20 or less... I mean seriously $100 to go from 16GB to 32GB? You can get a nice 80GB SSD for $100. Now if they charged $100 to go from 16GB to 64GB and another $100 to go from 64GB to 128GB, then it would be worth it... I really don't understand how they could make this such a high resolution display and not offer a 128GB version, even if you only put movies in 720p on it, those will command at least 10GB per movie...

okay done with the rant, but just wanted to make sure I am not missing anything with the NEW Ipad, its just a screen upgrade, right?
 
that was the entire point of the new ipad. make shit look better on the display.
 
Retina display, A5X chip, upgraded camera, LTE broadband...yeah, that's about it.

I'm upgrading from an iPad 1. The lack of RAM in the iPad 1 is starting to show it's ugly face. Safari, along with many other apps, crash constantly now. I didn't upgrade to an iPad 2 because the new features weren't enough to convince me. I can see the same thing going from an iPad 2 to The New iPad. If the new features don't interest you, as a consumer, going with the iPad 2 and saving $100 is still money well spent. Upgrading from an iPad 1 is a no-brainer at this point. As apps are released to take advantage of the retina display and larger RAM, the iPad 1 owners are left out of the party.

As for the storage space, I think it has more to do with Apple's preference for the streaming/cloud interface. Apple doesn't want you to put a ton of movies on your iPad. They want to provide you with the ability to stream your movies/music (ideally from another Apple device) wherever you are located.
 
Seagate goflex satellite. 500 gb of storage with built in wifi for iPad. Put your 1080p
movies on that.

And yes, this is mainly about a fantastic screen.
 
Last edited:
Considering that tablets are essentially a 'screen' wouldn't it make the most amount of sense to upgrade the component that is, well, responsible for everything?
You look at it to use it, the UI elements are on it, it is the interface in-and-of-itself, and to a large degree it is the point of the device. All of the interaction of and with the device is on the display.

There are several threads regarding the 3rd Generation iPad on the forums right now, and I think it's VERY strange that people are dismissing this generation because it "only" contains a resolution upgrade. There is another thread in mobile computing about this stating that at "10 inches, an increase of resolution does nothing for the function of the device" essentially stating "that it doesn't make that much of a visual difference." (paraphrasing.)

I haven't been around as long as some others on the boards are been involved in tech as long as some, but I have been around since a time in which gaming at 800x600 on a 15" monitor was considered the peak. These days, if a laptop doesn't have a resolution of 1680x1050 or 1920x1080/1200 on a 15" laptop people go ballistic. Shouldn't the same people state that 800x600 or 1024x768 at 15" is enough? That's what is puzzling to me. The fact of the matter is, there is a huge difference, it is noticeable and appreciable even by non-techy enthusiasts, and it is a clear market differentiator.

The resolution isn't 'everything' but in a package with significantly upgraded graphics and an ever snappy UI this device is killer. I'm pretty sure that once there are Android devices in the next 6-12 months with a similar resolution all the naysayers will fall in line and say that the resolution upgrade is the best thing ever, but at the moment "if it's an Apple device it's irrelevant."


Edit: Also as a side note, it's not hard to compress 1080P video down to around 4-6GB per movie if you're willing to simply remove audio options and compress the video a bit more. If you're viewing them on an iPad in the first place, you don't need anything more than stereo. Additionally the camera connection kit with SD cards allows using of the SD card for additional storage. I've read about some people exploiting the cheap cost of SD memory currently and then loading it up with movies for long flights.

Finally, I currently use the iPad 2 to display photos. I've got 100's of jpgs on there at full resolution (3,416 to be precise) and it doesn't take more than 7.04 GB. And by photos, I mean photography using a 5D Mark II to show people my work. My current 32GB iPad is more than enough to store all the photos, 40-60 some odd games, productivity apps (like the Apple suite, Garageband, iMS-20, and other large apps,) a few thousand AAC's and still have space left over. If the primary usage of the device is for movies, yeah it will be a little tricky to get everything you want on there, but managed correctly even 32GB is a heck of a lot of space.
 
Last edited:
The new iPad also has more system memory. Reportedly 1GB. That's kind of a big deal if you're a heavy Mobile Safari user and keep numerous tabs open at once, but otherwise probably not the big a deal. More memory should also keep Mobile Safari from pissing its pants and crashing, which is obviously pretty advantageous.
 
If you are interested, financially capable, looking at Apple products, then "the new iPad" is slightly more sensible at this point of time because.

1. The new iPad, with 2048 x 1536 resolution, will meet its primary role of Digital Media device, especially for Reading oriented needs.
2. If Apple continue with its tradition, the new iPad will continue to serve its primary function for many years down the road (plus the need to replace battery where appropriate). The difference between "the new iPad" and iPad 2 is relative. I know people who use single Apple product for 5 to 7 years, or even more. Spread over those years, the average additional is reasonable.

3. Above is relevant for users interested in standard usage where they will continue with "Reading Needs" where high-resolution does offer definite and tangible benefit, even many years later.

4. There are also another group of users focusing on short-term usage, meaning they might change gear every one or two years. Here the consideration is slightly different and price difference has more impact because they are going to spend again very shortly.

5. However, even this part now is deliberating because "the new iPad" offers everything to start again at USD499. secondly, check second-hand value and also demand for Apple product.

6. Finally note the reasonable part, if you only want to spend up to X-dollar irrespective of circumstances, then that will be the limit.
 
Aumakua said:
its just a screen upgrade, right?
Click to expand...

Sure if you ignore or dismiss the other upgrades, it is "just" a screen upgrade.

Better camera for better stills, stabilized 1080p video.
Faster SoC, A5x, hands on reports say operations faster than before.
Reports indicate increase in system RAM, likely to 1 GB.
Much better Wireless support on cellular model, not just LTE but a few other standards as well.
And the unprecedented Retina Screen.

Nearly everything improved. But yeah dismiss everything else it is "just" a screen upgrade.

IMO this is the biggest leap since release, and if you think this is minor, next year will likely make you weep.

I expect next year will just be SoC performance bump and maybe another camera tweak and that is about it. The screen is likely set for the foreseeable future now, same with wireless. I also expect anti-gravity hover tech, or whatever it would take to actually impress people is still out. ;)

This year seems like a great model to get in on, that you can hold for a couple of years.

Saving $100 to get the old one seems penny wise, pound foolish to me. I might not rush to upgrade, but save a 100$ and miss the (reportedly) amazing screen, speed/ram/camera improvements doesn't make sense to me.
 
UnknownSouljer said:
Edit: Also as a side note, it's not hard to compress 1080P video down to around 4-6GB per movie if you're willing to simply remove audio options and compress the video a bit more. If you're viewing them on an iPad in the first place, you don't need anything more than stereo. Additionally the camera connection kit with SD cards allows using of the SD card for additional storage. I've read about some people exploiting the cheap cost of SD memory currently and then loading it up with movies for long flights.

Finally, I currently use the iPad 2 to display photos. I've got 100's of jpgs on there at full resolution (3,416 to be precise) and it doesn't take more than 7.04 GB. And by photos, I mean photography using a 5D Mark II to show people my work. My current 32GB iPad is more than enough to store all the photos, 40-60 some odd games, productivity apps (like the Apple suite, Garageband, iMS-20, and other large apps,) a few thousand AAC's and still have space left over. If the primary usage of the device is for movies, yeah it will be a little tricky to get everything you want on there, but managed correctly even 32GB is a heck of a lot of space.
Click to expand...

1. I just ripped a blu-ray and even at 10Mbps it is not anywhere near the quality of the BD-Rom that it came from. There are obvious signs of over compression......

2. 32GB is what my HD2 has for space and is not a heck of a lot of space, 4TB is.......
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
1. I just ripped a blu-ray and even at 10Mbps it is not anywhere near the quality of the BD-Rom that it came from. There are obvious signs of over compression......

2. 32GB is what my HD2 has for space and is not a heck of a lot of space, 4TB is.......
Click to expand...

Compression to a degree is an art. There are certain options you can touch, others you can't. And of course in the end it won't look 100% like an uncompressed rip, however much like mp3's, compromises are made in order to allow more of them and to ease portability...

Which brings me to answering your second comment...

If that is your baseline (4TB) then I don't see how any single portable device could satisfy you. Even a dual HD laptop can't have that capacity. If those are your demands and you're sticking to them then I would say you're outright unreasonable. Would it be nice to have a 128GB option? Sure, however 32/64GB is more than enough. If you need a device to carry around your entire library of stuff, then of course this device isn't going to be enough for you, but there isn't a tablet (or cellphone since you mention it) that will do that is there?

Given that we're talking about a media device that is handheld and run purely on solid state at our current time, I'd say that 32GB is a heck of a lot of space. There is one person in the iPad announcement thread that commented that 32GB and 64GB models were pointless due to the fact that almost no amount of apps will fill 16GB, he doesn't want to listen to mp3's on a tablet, and all movies can be streamed via Netflix. And for his uses, he's actually quite right. Coming around again, if you need 4TB of space on a portable device in order to qualify the statement of a "heck of a lot" rather than me having to qualify it with "a heck of a lot for a tablet" then you're not really responding to the spirit in which the comment was given.
 
Snowdog said:
Nearly everything improved. But yeah dismiss everything else it is "just" a screen upgrade.

IMO this is the biggest leap since release, and if you think this is minor, next year will likely make you weep.

I expect next year will just be SoC performance bump and maybe another camera tweak and that is about it. The screen is likely set for the foreseeable future now, same with wireless. I also expect anti-gravity hover tech, or whatever it would take to actually impress people is still out. ;)
Click to expand...

Agreed 1000%.

Every single iOS cycle, people insist Apple didn't change enough. This cycle is a "tick". Just like the iPhone 4. People wouldn't have been so disappointed in the 4S if they didn't expect an iPhone 5 instead to do their laundry and walk the dog. iPhone 5 will drop this year and still not fly people to the moon or cure cancer, and people will lament.
 
lightp2 said:
If you are interested, financially capable, looking at Apple products, then "the new iPad" is slightly more sensible at this point of time because.

1. The new iPad, with 2048 x 1536 resolution, will meet its primary role of Digital Media device, especially for Reading oriented needs.
2. If Apple continue with its tradition, the new iPad will continue to serve its primary function for many years down the road (plus the need to replace battery where appropriate). The difference between "the new iPad" and iPad 2 is relative. I know people who use single Apple product for 5 to 7 years, or even more. Spread over those years, the average additional is reasonable.

3. Above is relevant for users interested in standard usage where they will continue with "Reading Needs" where high-resolution does offer definite and tangible benefit, even many years later.

4. There are also another group of users focusing on short-term usage, meaning they might change gear every one or two years. Here the consideration is slightly different and price difference has more impact because they are going to spend again very shortly.

5. However, even this part now is deliberating because "the new iPad" offers everything to start again at USD499. secondly, check second-hand value and also demand for Apple product.

6. Finally note the reasonable part, if you only want to spend up to X-dollar irrespective of circumstances, then that will be the limit.
Click to expand...

+1. Great post. Your point #1 is spot on. It's the primary reason I an upgrading now rather than waiting for the 4th gen iPad (my first iPad was the 2 gen device and it will be one-year old tomorrow).
 
Snowdog said:
Sure if you ignore or dismiss the other upgrades, it is "just" a screen upgrade.

Better camera for better stills, stabilized 1080p video.
Faster SoC, A5x, hands on reports say operations faster than before.
Reports indicate increase in system RAM, likely to 1 GB.
Much better Wireless support on cellular model, not just LTE but a few other standards as well.
And the unprecedented Retina Screen.

Nearly everything improved. But yeah dismiss everything else it is "just" a screen upgrade.

IMO this is the biggest leap since release, and if you think this is minor, next year will likely make you weep.

I expect next year will just be SoC performance bump and maybe another camera tweak and that is about it. The screen is likely set for the foreseeable future now, same with wireless. I also expect anti-gravity hover tech, or whatever it would take to actually impress people is still out. ;)

This year seems like a great model to get in on, that you can hold for a couple of years.

Saving $100 to get the old one seems penny wise, pound foolish to me. I might not rush to upgrade, but save a 100$ and miss the (reportedly) amazing screen, speed/ram/camera improvements doesn't make sense to me.
Click to expand...

+1. Nail on head hit you did.
 
This is essentially why I'm sticking with my iPad 2. It does everything I currently need, and the only benefit I'll get from an iPad 3 is the higher resolution screen, which isn't worth $630 to me.

I don't need a better camera because I don't use my iPad's camera. Don't game on my iPad, so the A5x doesn't benefit me. I have 99% wifi coverage in my life, so I will get little to no benefit from LTE.

This is something that's dependent on the individual though. It's not fair to try and expand it from "iPad 3 doesn't give me any benefit except a better screen" to "iPad 3 is the same thing with a better screen."

YeuEmMaiMai said:
1. I just ripped a blu-ray and even at 10Mbps it is not anywhere near the quality of the BD-Rom that it came from. There are obvious signs of over compression......
Click to expand...

You did something very wrong. A 720p Blu-ray rip, if done properly with x264, will look stunning even at bitrates as low as 5mbps. Of course it will also probably take all night to encode even on the latest Intel processors. :p
 
InorganicMatter said:
This is essentially why I'm sticking with my iPad 2. It does everything I currently need, and the only benefit I'll get from an iPad 3 is the higher resolution screen, which isn't worth $630 to me.

I don't need a better camera because I don't use my iPad's camera. Don't game on my iPad, so the A5x doesn't benefit me. I have 99% wifi coverage in my life, so I will get little to no benefit from LTE.

This is something that's dependent on the individual though. It's not fair to try and expand it from "iPad 3 doesn't give me any benefit except a better screen" to "iPad 3 is the same thing with a better screen."
Click to expand...

You are correct. My iPad 2 did all I asked it to do, but when it comes to viewing PDFs made of 8.5-inch by 11-inch technical documents, the 1028 by 768 resolution screen resulted in mal-formed characters on fonts and other finely detailed objects on screen, even in fonted PDFs. The new screen will change this and make long hours of reason much more pleasant and less tiring, while also reducing the need to zoom in or hold the device so close to my face. I expect to the improved images when viewing magazines, too.

I won't be using 4G either. I have good wifi at home and work and I'm good with that.

I'm not sure I won't be using the camera, though. Now that the camera is actually worth using, I may well use it for taking some kinds of video since I will be able to compose content on the device itself. The larger screen will aid in framing the shots and that works better than a tiny phone. Obviously, this larger device won't go around with me in my pocket, so the phone camera will still be used, but I foresee some additional options with the iPad's HD video camera. I'm certainly going to use it if I can. And don't forget that it has image stabilization that actually works. This will find applications by those who don't close their minds to the idea.
 
OP's not trying to troll, but he makes one post and nothing else in this thread. :rolleyes:
 
I'm with you on this one. Reading books with a shiny back lit screen? I'll take my e-ink kindle any day for that (with it's two month battery.)

I would not put music on it, I would rather have the old iPod nano or the iPod classic. For trips, I can see watching a movie on it. I would get the WiFi version, no point in using LTE with the current pricing carriers have especially since my phone has unlimited data (verizon.)

I can't justify it outside of using it in bed at night versus whipping out the notebook or sitting infront of the PC (which feels like work.)

I've tried making a work case for it. Where I use it, to bring to my meetings with my boss and show him the documents on that thing versus emailing the document and him printing it out. Then I realize I'd be making his life easier not mine...
 
The thing I don't like about Apple is they always put the least amount of RAM they can get away with, to maximize their profit. Everyone loves to justify this with the usual BS argument, "iOS is so efficient it doesn't need more".

Well yes it does, you can't cheat basic memory needs. Open more than a few apps and with multiple tabs in a browser, they start getting unloaded on my iPad 2. Other apps start getting suspended so it takes much longer to switch.

With iPad 3 they were probably forced to increase the Ram due to the higher resolution.
 
If I had a iPad2 I probably would not have upgraded. But I feel it is a very significant over the first iPad. Even so over the second one aswell. The screen upgrade is kind of a big deal.. but I could not justify a upgrade at the cost of a new iPad each year.
 
MrCrispy said:
The thing I don't like about Apple is they always put the least amount of RAM they can get away with, to maximize their profit. Everyone loves to justify this with the usual BS argument, "iOS is so efficient it doesn't need more".

Well yes it does, you can't cheat basic memory needs. Open more than a few apps and with multiple tabs in a browser, they start getting unloaded on my iPad 2. Other apps start getting suspended so it takes much longer to switch.

With iPad 3 they were probably forced to increase the Ram due to the higher resolution.
Click to expand...


Several things.

Firstly Apple does their RAM optimization in terms of other considerations. Mainly battery life. Additional RAM decreases battery life significantly.

Second, iOS suspends all background programs. You could add 12GB of RAM and that behavior wouldn't change. It does that for several reasons. It decreases the amount of processing power necessary. It decreases the amount of RAM necessary. It increases the amount of battery life by not having programs run in the background.

iOS was designed this way to be a lightweight portable operating system. It doesn't have any multi-tasking intentionally because that increases resources required by the system. However because it was recognized that all programs on iOS run "full screen" anyway, it doesn't matter. By default really only one program can be used by the user at any one time. These design choices and behaviors may not be your preference, but by designing the OS that way the amount of memory that an application can have is 100% predictable, as in there is no load from any other programs other than the OS itself. This is why the iPad 2 never chugs (although yes, there is lag in between switching programs, while in the programs themselves there isn't any appreciable speed ups or slow downs.)

Despite what you may think, the amount of RAM placed into all iOS devices is based upon quite a few design decisions and it isn't arbitrary or simply about making the most profit. Don't get me wrong, I understand Apple is a corporate entity and they exist for the sole purpose of making money, but for an organization that purchases as many semi-conductors as they do probably could buy tons of RAM and have no real change in cost to them or their devices.

Their software and their hardware are designed in such a way as to give consistent performance with appropriate constraints. I suppose another way of looking at it is like the specs of a video game console, in which compared to a PC is significantly weaker, but because of the way the resources are dedicated and are completely measurable, they are capable of a surprisingly good gaming experience, despite not having insane specifications.
 
I never said iOS should have true multitasking, I'm perfectly fine with the way its implemented. Other OS's like WP7 do the same thing.

There is no excuse for putting only 512MB of RAM in iPhone or iPad's. The only thing it does is force apps to not have enough data loaded. Even with only 1 active app, more memory will result in faster app switching, and more data (like tabs) in the active app. There's no design choice here, the choice was simply 'what's the least memory that will make this run acceptably'.

Instead, Apple purposely hide the amount of RAM in their devices and never disclose it. Saving a few $ on RAM is tens of millions in additional profit.
 
MrCrispy said:
I never said iOS should have true multitasking, I'm perfectly fine with the way its implemented. Other OS's like WP7 do the same thing.

There is no excuse for putting only 512MB of RAM in iPhone or iPad's. The only thing it does is force apps to not have enough data loaded. Even with only 1 active app, more memory will result in faster app switching, and more data (like tabs) in the active app. There's no design choice here, the choice was simply 'what's the least memory that will make this run acceptably'.

Instead, Apple purposely hide the amount of RAM in their devices and never disclose it. Saving a few $ on RAM is tens of millions in additional profit.
Click to expand...

I agree, it is what is the minimum amount of RAM that will make it run acceptably, but by using the word "acceptably" you've just stated that it is "acceptable." Additionally, you didn't address battery life concerns or anything else I noted. However, that aside, 1GB of RAM, although nice (I'm glad they put it in, don't get me wrong) is actually an incredible amount of RAM considering that we're talking about a mobile device. There are still people running OSX off of 2GB of RAM and integrated video cards (like the MBA as an example.)

iOS has a much smaller memory footprint than OSX, and the only reason I can see for the upgrade in the RAM really is for frame buffering. I don't think it will have any apparent effect on the performance of the system. The upgraded graphics cores and increase in RAM is really just to accommodate the resolution. I think in-so-far-as perception of speed it will probably give around what it already does now in the iPad 2. In other words the taxation of rendering the larger screen is simply offset with higher specs but will probably feel about the same.
 
i call LTE and the high rez screen a5x cpu and more memory a somewhat decent upgrade honestly. anyone who doesn't think so has never used LTE on a daily basis. ...it's like having super fast broadband everywhere you go, and a nice screen is never a waste.....I'm not a fan of the apple image thing, don't own any myself, but i'm not going to spin things to say they are no good
 
Aumakua said:
okay done with the rant, but just wanted to make sure I am not missing anything with the NEW Ipad, its just a screen upgrade, right?
Click to expand...

Of course the screen is the biggest update... but don't forget about the faster GPU, better cameras and LTE capability.

Most devices are updated yearly... and they DON'T have something radical like a new screen.

Canon releases 6 new point-n-shoot cameras every year... Dell and HP have dozens of new laptops every year... and so on. Those are relatively minor updates from year to year.

Apple also did updates to the new iPad... but they threw in a whopper of a screen, too!
 
Last edited:
MrCrispy said:
There is no excuse for putting only 512MB of RAM in iPhone or iPad's.
Click to expand...

So is it acceptable for Windows Phones? The Flagship Nokia Lumina 800 has 512MB.

Is this really having a detrimental affect on apps? Android apps are better because they have 1GB machines? Doesn't seem likely.

This looks more like spec worship.
 
At this point in time my iPad 2 does everything I need it to do. I use my phone as a mobile hotspot so LTE capability is lost on me. I'll upgrade when the iPad 4 comes out.
 
Aumakua said:
I really don't understand how they could make this such a high resolution display and not offer a 128GB version, even if you only put movies in 720p on it, those will command at least 10GB per movie...
Click to expand...

The maximum bitrate for H.264 is 2.5 mbps, so there will be no "10 GB per movie", at least using the native video player.
 
Aumakua said:
I really don't understand how they could make this such a high resolution display and not offer a 128GB version, even if you only put movies in 720p on it, those will command at least 10GB per movie...
Click to expand...

The maximum bitrate for MPEG4 is 2.5 mbps, so there will be no "10 GB per movie", at least using the native video player.
 
Not quite...

The retina display is definitely a big improvement, and the larger battery is as you say only there to compensate for the increase in hardware.

But... it's not quite as simple as that when it comes to the quad-core GPU. Developers may get some extra grunt out of it for games, or maybe not. We'll see, but both Infinity Blade: Dungeons and Sky Gamblers: Air Supremacy look very graphically impressive.

Oh, and of course, the increase to 1GB RAM. Hopefully it'll be faster RAM too, 1066MHz instead of 800MHz, and even better, LPDDR3 RAM instead of LPDDR2.

And yeah you've got the camera but that's nothing huge.
 
MrCrispy said:
Instead, Apple purposely hide the amount of RAM in their devices and never disclose it. Saving a few $ on RAM is tens of millions in additional profit.
Click to expand...

They don't list RAM on iDevices because they don't think there's any advantage in doing so. Besides, people find out how much RAM is in there when iFixit and the like get a new device and disassemble it. People who care about specs will find out what specs are on there. People who don't care—99% of the population—will get a new iDevice, say "Hey, it's faster!", and be happy.

As for profit, you overstate the effect of RAM and understate Apple's existing margins.
 
I'm surprised people aren't talking about the battery more than they are. A 42Wh battery in something this small is fairly unprecedented and I'm curious what chemistry they are using. I know that to most it's just another feature to offset power consumption, but to those of us who work close to the battery business, this is a much bigger eye-opener than the display.
 
sphinx99 said:
I'm surprised people aren't talking about the battery more than they are. A 42Wh battery in something this small is fairly unprecedented and I'm curious what chemistry they are using. I know that to most it's just another feature to offset power consumption, but to those of us who work close to the battery business, this is a much bigger eye-opener than the display.
Click to expand...

Well, I think because battery life is unchanged. I am also crossing my fingers that the 9 hour LTE claim is true... given the negative press surrounding battery life in LTE phones.

But it is pretty awesome (I think it was Anandtech who had a good graphic showing just how BIG it is, comparing to past/current Macbooks) and for what is really a rather small weight increase (0.11 pounds!). I am curious as to where else they shaved weight to get it so close.
 
sphinx99 said:
I'm surprised people aren't talking about the battery more than they are. A 42Wh battery in something this small is fairly unprecedented and I'm curious what chemistry they are using. I know that to most it's just another feature to offset power consumption, but to those of us who work close to the battery business, this is a much bigger eye-opener than the display.
Click to expand...

This is true. The battery in the iPad 3 is roughly as large as that in the 13'' 2008 MacBook. If Apple has increased battery density in the iPad to the point where they realized a 70% gain from the iPad 2 to iPad 3, imagine what they have cooking for the MacBook Pro line.
 
Any additional power added is just to run the display. You can't just double the resolution and expect it to run the same. The A5X chip should make apps/games at the native resolution of the ipad 3 feel about as snappy as they do on an ipad 2. I don't expect any thing to actually feel as if it's running faster or more responsive than a 2.

The camera upgrade is useless IMO, who the hell is going to use an ipad to take photos or video? I don't know a single person with an ipad who does and I know I wouldn't. They should have upgraded the front camera as that's more likely to be used.

Don't care about 4g. I do have a 3g ipad and used the 3g plan for a road trip right when it came out. Haven't used the plan since now that we both have smart phones.
Would rather see an upgrade to the new wifi standards.

I am upgrading to the new ipad from my 1st gen only because mine is such a dog. Very slow and apps crash often. But if it weren't for that I don't see anything really compelling(to me) about the new ipad.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
1. I just ripped a blu-ray and even at 10Mbps it is not anywhere near the quality of the BD-Rom that it came from. There are obvious signs of over compression......

2. 32GB is what my HD2 has for space and is not a heck of a lot of space, 4TB is.......
Click to expand...

Then you're doing it wrong. I have a home server and stream bluray rips to an HTPC over my network. About 500 movies and counting so far. So i've had a fair bit of experience with this. I can make rips and re-encode them that are indistinguishable from the original. File size will vary of course. With a DTS-MA HD audio track I can take animated movies to 4gb and less. Most movies are around 8gb on average. High action movies like transformers are higher. Of course you drop down to stereo audio and it's easy to get the file size down further and they are still 1080p without sacrificing quality.
 
Archer75 said:
Any additional power added is just to run the display. You can't just double the resolution and expect it to run the same. The A5X chip should make apps/games at the native resolution of the ipad 3 feel about as snappy as they do on an ipad 2. I don't expect any thing to actually feel as if it's running faster or more responsive than a 2.
Click to expand...

Hands-on reports after the keynote indicated that, yes, the iPad 3 does indeed feel a bit snappier than the iPad 2.

The camera upgrade is useless IMO, who the hell is going to use an ipad to take photos or video?
Click to expand...

This is a fair point. The iPad 2 is not a very popular camera, at least if Flickr upload stats mean anything. That said, it's possible people don't use the iPad 2 as a camera because it's not very good; let's see how that changes when the iPad 3 is available.

(It's also worth noting that Apple lately has expressly marketed the iPhone as a photo-taking device, while they do not market the iPad that way.)

Would rather see an upgrade to the new wifi standards.
Click to expand...

802.11ac was only published a few months ago. It's a little early to expect Apple to release an iPad that uses ac when they don't even have an Airport Extreme that supports ac. And it'll be tough to displace 802.11g in the short term. We'll know if ac is coming to the iPad if/when AT&T begins upgrading their wifi hotspots to support n and ac.

But if it weren't for that I don't see anything really compelling(to me) about the new ipad.
Click to expand...

You'll literally see a compelling feature when you turn the screen on.
 
Terpfen said:
You'll literally see a compelling feature when you turn the screen on.
Click to expand...

I don't much care about the retina display. Sure, it looks nicer but it's not a game changer for me. The ipad looks fine as is. I'd rather have more real world power. But mostly changes to ios to allow the ability to set default apps and apps to become aware of each other so that they can integrate.
For example when I install any of the many twitter clients, google+ clients, etc. onto android or WP7 they show up as apps that images can be shared to via the built in camera app. So there's some interoperability there that I like and find useful.

Currently shopping for a case with a built in keyboard.

I think it's the form factor that prevents it from being useful as a camera. Just too awkward and silly to use as such. But yes, we will see.

Mine will arrive on Friday and I have a friend with an ipad 2 so it will be easy to compare.
 
Archer75 said:
I don't much care about the retina display. Sure, it looks nicer but it's not a game changer for me. The ipad looks fine as is.
Click to expand...

I highly disagree. Doubled pixel density and 44% improved color gamut were necessary changes, and I doubt highly that anyone who sees an iPad Retina Display could ever go back to an iPad 1 or 2 display, just as those who saw the iPhone 4's Retina Display couldn't go back to the 3GS.

I originally intended to not buy an iPad until the Retina Display made its way to the device, but I eventually had to get an iPad 2 for a variety of reasons. It's a huge feature, no pun intended.

I'd rather have more real world power.
Click to expand...

You are getting more real world power. Your basic assumption here is that the hardware upgrades will be negated by the higher resolution, leaving us with no net gain in performance. Hands-on reports after the keynote contradict this. You're getting better hardware.

But mostly changes to ios to allow the ability to set default apps and apps to become aware of each other so that they can integrate.
For example when I install any of the many twitter clients, google+ clients, etc. onto android or WP7 they show up as apps that images can be shared to via the built in camera app. So there's some interoperability there that I like and find useful.
Click to expand...

Not sure what specific functionality you want that you're missing; just going on your example, apps already have access to the camera, or the 30-pin port, or whatever else they might need. To take things a step further, you now have systemwide Twitter integration, allowing you to do things like tweeting out your current page in Safari.

I think it's the form factor that prevents it from being useful as a camera. Just too awkward and silly to use as such. But yes, we will see.
Click to expand...

The smart cover negates that, IMO. Just rest it on a surface and take a photo. I think the real issue is that most people don't have their iPad in situations where they might want to take photos, while they do have their iPhone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top