backtop


Print 100 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Mar 19 at 3:31 PM

Apple has another solid hit with the "New iPad"

Apple's "New iPad" was announced last week to much fanfare in San Francisco. As is usually the case with new iPad or iPhone releases, launch day pre-orders sold out quickly and those who were late to get their orders in could end up waiting for a few weeks to get their hands on one.
 
As a refresher, an Apple A5X processor that has seen its onboard RAM double from 512MB to 1GB powers the new iPad. The A5X is also blessed with a quad-core GPU which boosts gaming performance and helps feed the new iPad's biggest new feature: a 2048 x 1536 resolution Retina display. Other niceties include a 5MP rear-facing camera, and optional LTE connectivity.

 
On the negative side, the weight and thickness of the iPad has grown to accommodate a new 42.5 watt-hour battery (the iPad 2 had a 25 watt-hour battery). In addition, Apple is once again being stingy with storage capacities on the iPad. Even though app sizes are doubling or even tripling in some cases due to Retina support, Apple is holding firm with 16GB, 32GB, and 64GB capacities -- the same lineup as when the first generation iPad launched in 2010.
 
Tonight, however, we're getting our first look at what the new iPad can do courtesy of a flood of reviews. Here are some select excerpts from the reviews that are currently available:
 
Joshua Topolsky of The Verge gives his thoughts on the iPad 3's gorgeous new Retina display:
 
Yes, this display is outrageous. It's stunning. It's incredible. I'm not being hyperbolic or exaggerative when I say it is easily the most beautiful computer display I have ever looked at…
 
You literally can't see pixels on the iPad's display when you hold it at a regular distance, and even up close you have to really inspect the thing to see dots. For rendered text or high resolution images, it just looks otherworldly; like a glowing piece of paper.
 

The difference between the iPad 2's display and the new iPad's Retina display [Source: The Verge]
 
Walt Mossberg of AllThingsD fame touched on the battery life of the new iPad. While it's not quite the power-sipper as its predecessor, it still posts some impressive numbers.
 
Apple claims up to 10 hours of battery life between charges, and up to nine hours if you are relying strictly on cellular connectivity. In my standard battery test, where I play videos back to back with both cellular and Wi-Fi on, and the screen at 75% brightness, the new iPad logged 9 hours and 58 minutes, compared with 10 hours and 9 minutes for the iPad 2. Other tablets died hours sooner in the same test. In more normal use, the new iPad lasted more than a full day, though not as long as the iPad 2 did.
 
The original iPad didn't have any cameras at all, while the iPad 2 came with a standard front-facing camera for FaceTime and an incredibly subpar rear-facing camera for pictures and 720p video. The new iPad can now features a 5MP camera and bumps video recording up to 1080p. Vincent Nguyen of SlashGear gives his thoughts on the new optics:
 
Apple says it has borrowed the camera technology and optics from the iPhone 4S for the new iPad, though still the 5-megapixel images the tablet is capable of do lag behind the 8-megapixel examples from the smartphone. There’s more visible noise and chromatic aberrations at full zoom, though the quality is far, far better than any stills the iPad 2 can achieve. You also get face recognition for up to ten people per frame, automatically adjusting focus and exposure, but the camera app UI itself is no more complex than before.
 
While the actual CPU hasn't improved much over the iPad 2, the integrated GPU has definitely been turbocharged, as witnessed by Jason Snell of MacWorld:
 
That power comes from the X factor in the A5X processor—a new quad-core graphics engine. And sure enough, the third-generation iPad blows away every other iOS device in terms of graphics performance. In our tests using the GLBench 3D graphics testing app, the third-generation iPad could draw a complex 3D scene at the full frame rate of its display, 60 frames per second, without breaking a sweat. And in GLBench offscreen tests, which aren’t constrained by the display’s frame rate, the third-generation iPad had a frame rate 1.6 times that of the iPad 2 (and 13 times that of the original iPad).
 
 
 

[Source: MacWorld]
 
Overall, the new iPad seems to be another solid entry into the tablet field for Apple. It holds the line on CPU performance and battery life (at the expense of device thickness and weight) while offering an impressive Retina display, optional LTE, and a tremendous boost in graphics performance. Pricing remains the same as previous iPad model ($499/$599/$699 for Wi-Fi; add $130 for LTE models), but Apple still doesn't have the guts to give users an increase in storage capacities.
 
To sum things up, Joshua Topolsky offers these words of advice:
 
Let's be clear: the new iPad is in a class by itself, just as its predecessor was. As the latest product in a lineage of devices that defined this category, the iPad continues to stand head and shoulders above the competition. With the addition of the Retina display, LTE, more memory, and a more powerful CPU, Apple has absolutely held onto the iPad's market position as the dominant player and product to beat. 
 
 


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Preempting Android fan responses
By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2012 1:00:24 AM , Rating: 5
Uhhh I'm an "Android fan" (whatever that is) and I'm thinking this is a great tablet, like the iPad2 was.

What turns me off about Apple is the way they do things, the restrictions they place on the user with arbitrary decisions like calling all Flash use "for porn", and the walled garden approach. Plus this blatant bullyism and patent trolling tactic by them in an obvious attempt to kill competition is disgusting personally.

The hardware itself is great, no denying that. I personally wouldn't pay this much for a tablet. For what this costs, I can build a bare bones Ivy Bridge PC kit which is far more useful for me. But if Apple can command a 50+% profit margin on each of these, obviously they have a compelling product for consumers.

Side note, not sure what the big deal is about Airplay though. I view tablets as media receivers. Using one to stream media to something else is totally backwards to me and not ideal. Plus, honestly, who has Apple TV anyway?


By retrospooty on 3/15/2012 7:35:47 AM , Rating: 2
"Uhhh I'm an "Android fan" (whatever that is) and I'm thinking this is a great tablet, like the iPad2 was. What turns me off about Apple is the way they do things"

2nd'ed


RE: Preempting Android fan responses
By Commodus on 3/15/2012 7:38:36 AM , Rating: 1
You're conflating things here.

Apple never said Flash was for porn -- Jobs was arguing that the laissez-faire attitude towards Android app restrictions was for porn (which was a specious argument on his part, but that's another story).

Its patent tactics are a bit overmuch, but there's zero question that certain companies were simply trying to freeload off of Apple's work. Ever seen a non-US Samsung smartphone? Notice that big, central, iPhone-like home button that is mysteriously absent on every other Android phone, and which mysteriously disappears when that phone is brought to the US? Yeah... Samsung is fully aware it's copying Apple, and it had to be forced to do otherwise.

The key for AirPlay is that you don't have to wait for your media hub to get a feature to share content, and you don't have to break your experience if you want to move something you've been watching or hearing to a better source. And about 2.8 million people bought Apple TVs in 2011; another million or so of the current generation in 2010, and more in 2012. Several times more than Google TV or any other networked media hub.


By corduroygt on 3/15/2012 9:53:53 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
And about 2.8 million people bought Apple TVs in 2011; another million or so of the current generation in 2010, and more in 2012. Several times more than Google TV or any other networked media hub

Protip: HTPCs (including mac mini), PS3's, Xbox 360's, media streamers such as WDTV Live, and Smart TV's are all network media hubs, and they vastly outnumber Apple TV sales.


RE: Preempting Android fan responses
By nafhan on 3/15/2012 10:39:48 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
there's zero question that certain companies were simply trying to freeload off of Apple's work...Notice that big, central, iPhone-like home button
First of all the round home button is a design issue - not a patent issue. Second, (I've said this before) if that's enough to confuse someone into thinking they're getting an iPhone, that mostly just says something about the intelligence level of the person buying the product. Not to say that design should never be defensible, but the only people who think consumers are actually as stupid as you are alleging are the people defending Apple's IP rampage.

Also, Apple (and every other tech company) "freeloads" off the work of those who have come before them. It's how advancements in technology happen. The difference now is that the legal system surrounding IP has problems, and Apple (and others, to a lesser degree) are taking advantage of that. The system is off balance to the point that it strongly favors large companies who have a lot of money and are willing to use that money to patent everything regardless of prior art or obviousness. This does not benefit the consumer!


By Reclaimer77 on 3/15/2012 12:42:22 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh so it's a gimped Xbox Media Center or PS3 with an Apple logo on it? Again, no thanks. Not for me.

Or a better analogy is Apple TV is a crippled Western Digital Live TV Plus with no browser, slaved to iTunes, and less than stellar codec support. You can't even stream from your OSX machine to the Apple TV, wtf is that all about? A $50 Roku does more stuff, and better, than this Apple TV. Apple TV's Netflix app also performs at an unacceptable level. 13 seconds to start a video? Unacceptable.

Once again I simply cannot consider buying yet another Apple product with the arbitrary walled garden environment they want to place me in. The device is so irrevocably chained to iTunes, a service I don't even use, there's simply NO WAY you can recommend this device. Anandtech said it best, as always:

Apple imposes basic limits on what you can play on the Apple TV. The problem I have with the Apple TV is it feels like a product with a lot of wasted potential. You can make arguments for OS X, the iPhone and even the iPad, but with the Apple TV despite its lower pricing it’s just not complete enough. You can watch some TV shows but not others, so you have to keep cable. And those that you can watch don’t stream live, you get them 24 hours later - so you might as well use Hulu or wait for the Boxee Box. I get that this aspect isn’t Apple’s fault, but the others are.

There’s no way to stream your OS X desktop to the Apple TV. That alone would be a killer feature, the Apple version of Intel’s WiDi.


"This is from the DailyTech.com. It's a science website." -- Rush Limbaugh














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki