"It certainly blows away the Android competition and should ensure that the iPad continues to dominate the tablet category"
Until the "Android competition" bring higher res screens to their devices, in ......3......2......1......
Let’s cut to the chase. The "new iPad" doesn’t have the much-rumoured haptic touch technology. In fact, its list of major new features can be counted on the fingers of one hand. It doesn’t even have a number after its name. How disappointing is that? Apple New iPad 3 And yet, after a weekend of gazing longingly at the …
but it's not like the hi res screen is a surprise though, is it? it was long rumoured for the iPhone, and when it arrived, it was obvious that the iPad was going to get it too.
so WHY hasn't the competition already got higher res screens? it's impossible to think they weren't aware this was going to happen, so why haven't they already got a tablet in the market with at least the same spec screen?
instead, they're all just sitting on their hands, taking a back seat, happy to give Apple all the market share and the publicity. Sure, they'll probably rush a product to market now, and it'll be obviously rushed and critically, later than the iPad.
for the competition to be competition, they've gotta start getting ahead of the game, not just content to constantly play catch-up
Well lead times are a factor - if you were to literally do nothing until the "new iPad" is released and only then start developing something to copy it, it'd take you 6-12 months to get something to market. Therefore, the fact that Asus announced their high res tablet a month or so ago, and it's due in the next couple of months, shows that they're not sitting on their hands waiting for Apple to move.
Yes, Apple got there quicker, but then Apple have ~10 times the market cap compared to Asus ($600b vs ~$6b), and so possibly an equivalently higher R&D spend, larger supplier influence and reach, etc.
As for your comments about to be competition they've got to release ahead of Apple, not entirely true - Apple are gunning for the premium end alone, there's plenty of smaller (compared to Apple) manufacturers out there carving out plenty of profitable market share, by releasing just behind the (current) market leader.
Yes, and no.
If you look at the numbers, the iPhone 4 share the throne for 3.5" devices with Sharp's IS03 - both at 326, both with retina displays. Nokia's (absolutely brilliant) N900 comes close with 267, tho no cigar.
Sony's Xperia S, on the other hand, has more ppi - 342 on 4.3". The Galaxy Note has "only" 285, but a whooping 5.3" realestate.
So the iPhone isn't alone on top (IS03 was out Oct 2010), and Sony has them beat in absolute terms. Then, of course, we can discuss Retina vs. PenTile vs. etc, etc, etc.
As far as I am aware the galaxy nexus matches the iphone for density, The Note is pretty close and I am sure there is a Motorola that matched the iphone resolution as well. On the other hand, most you don't actually need a high density phone screen. The Galaxy S2 is repeatedly considered to be superior to the iphone 4 screen despite having less pixels. Having a high res screen is not the be-and-end all outside of Apple's marketing machine. Android tablets actually out performed the iphone 1 & 2 fvery early ont with higher resolution. Now apple have come back and increased the density to compensate. I am more than happy with the resolution on my Transformer 101. I don't actually see the need to upgrade it for a higher res screen. I would rather have the hd 720p screen of the Galaxy Note 10.1 with it's stylus than the pixel monstrosity that is the new iPad.
"Lead times are a factor. However, the iPhone 4 has been out for nearly two years now, and AFAIK, none of the non apple phone even match it for pixel density.."
Apple doesn't lead on specs, but it does lead on marketing and awareness. How many people do actually know that you can get better gadgets from other companies? I don't watch TV so I'm not aware of what ads other companies are running, but I saw an ad for Apple yesterday where someone changed a calendar entry on their phone and it updated on their desktop. This has been standard android functionality since the stone age, but it's so unknown that Apple can come to market with a copycat product years later and make it look like something new!
In terms of resolution and more, Apple played catchup before the "the new ipad" arrived, and they'll be playing catchup before the next one arrives. But this doesn;t mean they've been sinttin on their hands waiting for Android to take the lead again. Meanwhile, Android tablet makers are playing catchup at the moment but they've not been sitting on their hands either, they've been releasing advanced, superior products. Perhaps the reason you're not aware of this is that Apple has all the publicity, but I doubt the android makers are happy about this.
For Apple, the iPad is the result of a vision for a device that will deliver a certain sort of experience.
For Apple's tablet competitors - well ... it's just not. They don't have a vision, they don't have the desire to bring something innovative to people, they just want a slice of a particular market's profits: their heart isn't in it; they're always going to be playing catchup because their motives are poor.
And I say this as someone who largely dislikes a lot of the controlling, anti-competitive shit that Apple pulls.
Your statement depends entirely on several shades of grey - as is so often the case.
Personally, while not an Android fan, I find the Galaxy Note a far, far better tablet than the iPad 2 - and the iPad 3, even without testing the latter. The Note is portable, non-slippery, light, and has an exceptional screen. The iPad is heavy (yes, I DO actually own one), slippery, too large, and doesn't have a very nice screen. #3 will have a nice display, tho. But 4:3, in 2012?
YOUR mileage may vary, but for me the Note blew the iPad out of the water. It's a complex reality we live in.
4:3 is fantastic as fas as I'm concerned.
You know that there are some of us who can't stand this fad for 'widescreen' displays.
The amount of vertical scrolling that you have to do on many, many web sites is a testament to their designers (who seem to love more and more white space) total lack of nonce about Usability.
Using the iPad in eirter orientation if a far more pleasurable experience than any Widescreen Android tablet I have tried.
SO 4:3 in 2012? YES PLEASE.
"You know that there are some of us who can't stand this fad for 'widescreen' displays."
It's not a fad - it's a preference*. Which is the entire point of this discussion, when it comes down to it.
* Tho if you announce a device as particularly suited for watching movies and TV series, then 4:3 becomes less a preference. Up to you tho. I find the screen too small for movies. Not that I got anything to ever play on it.
I think quite a lot of the discussion is manufacturers trying to find a way to distinguish their products and the usual partisans trying to turn it into a wedge issue. Which explains the pattern of up and down votes here, I think — even discussion it like normal people puts you a bit too close to areas heavily ploughed by the trolls.
Me? The 4:3 is closer to A4 (and US letter) so feels better for reading, especially with a pixel density that looks almost as good as printed material. Widescreen is trivially better for most modern video content because most modern video content is widescreen. So I agree with you that it's a preference.
This is overpriced and soon you will be able to an Android tablet with the same display (they made by Samsung after all). With Android you wont be contrained by Apple's fachist restrictions. The only reason you will buy a new iPad is if you a fashion conscious pleb thats just wants the latest shinny thing that Apple offers even though all they provided is a better display without any meaningful new functionality. If you get the 4G one you even a bigger idiot.
Fully disclosure: I recieved my new iPad (non-4G) on Friday. I love it every bit as much as my iPhone. I thought it best though to save the Apple haters some valuable time by posting on their behalf.
The funny thing is you were trying to be ironic, and yet your first 3 sentences were bang on - aside from the overpriced (it's no more expensive than the premium competition) and "fachist" comments (I'd argue it's not *fascist*, but merely wrapping non-technical users in a closed-garden cotton wool blanket).
In all fairness, I really did want to set out to the usual arguments made against the iPad. I wanted to get them out of the way. I'm not even disagreeing with them. I'm fed up of reading the same old arguments.
I recognise the "issues" with Apple and its devices. I'm not even an Apple fan, but hey... I like the devices. I am happy with the compromises. Completely understand why people may prefer Android based stuff too.
I bought my first this week, not because I'm a fanbois or I like shiny things, but because it does what it says, updates tend to come out on time, and are not subject to the whims of a hand set manufacturer. The OS is stable and compatibility is pretty good. It will be around for a bit yet unlike android where they bring out a new design a week then ignore the older models. Also apps are more secure and are sandboxed from the OS, I need security for work.
Ok it has some flaws but as tablets go, even without the screen it is the best of the bunch.
Ps, I will continue to abuse fanbois but only if they leave gush all over and leave knob head comments.
You know who I am.
Not the only reason
I have 7" Galaxy tablet and I am more than happy with it for everyday use, I watch films/browse the web etc on it almost every night before I go to sleep. The quality of the screen is perfect for a 7" device in my opinion.
However, I'm still contemplating getting an Ipad.
The reason? The software I want simply isn't being made and manufactures seem to have little interest in making it for the Android. I'm heavily into music, samplers, synthesizers and Android has been left in the dark compared to what's available in the Ipad.
A conversation about this recently on Korg's web site resulted in someone saying
"I also mainly miss music apps on my Android gear. Tuners and Realbook stuff is available, but not really many nice synths or DAW like things like on iPad/iPhone. But the reason, from the developers point of view, is quite clear I think. The Apple stuff uses CoreAudio which is a known and reliable low latency supporting protocol. The Android audio protocol is fine for multimedia, but is simply not designed to compete in the low latency department. I have a synth on my phone, the lowest achievable latency is 46ms.I think even regardless of the market perception (where most musicians have Apple stuff) from the developers POV, Google needs to seriously update its audio protocol if it is at all interested to compete in this part of the market."
I could list music app after music app that I would love on my android but will never have unless I go for the ipad. For example:
The professional pro music companies are releasing more and more stuff for ipad and simply forgetting Android even exists. Doesn't matter which is better, if I want my music apps on a tablet, I really do have zero choice.
no (but hey, I can get meself a 4G (or is it 7G these days?) from the US of A, pay the extra for the "G" bit, pay the extra for the postage, pay the extra to the Her Majesty's Customs to support the banking fuckup (i.e. the economic crisis) and then, yes, I will have me gps. Sorted then!
can I expand storage?
no (but hey, instead of picking up an sd card for a tenner, I can get upgrade to a higher spec ipad, 16 Gb extra storage for a mere 80 quid). Sorted!
no, it doesn't
other than that (and the fact, that it'd be insulting to have to advertise this apple logo, unless you can plaster it with something), it's allright, this ipad.
I really, really wanted an excuse to buy one of these as the display is going to be amazing as a photographer. The problem is that I already have an iPhone 4 that does damn near everything else the iPad can do, and an HTPC under the TV for when I want a bigger screen when sofa-surfing. I needed better reasons for spending £400 on a luxury item damn you Apple!
I'm actually comtemplating buying one of these to use as a photographer. Your iPhone 4 may be the bees knees, but how impressed are potential new clients looking at a 2" screen to work out if they like some of your photography style? My principle reason to buy this would be the screen, to have a portable selection of images to show.
I am disappointed that it cannot read images from CF cards, even using the "camera conenction kit" which is supposed to allow for things like this. Also the "camera connection kit" won't allow me to connect it to any of my cameras and do anything with them, although frustraitingly there are a number of Android apps that do allow this (control of camera functions, liveview, focus stacking, etc.) The new 10" Galaxy Note with a similar resolution screen is very tempting, and a proper stylus may make some interactions easier.
In the end though, I've waited too long to buy this one, so I guess I will as soon as it is released in this country (still waiting). I'm told that the Galaxy note will be at least another 6 months here.
"There are 3rd party iPad card readers that support CF :)"
Yes, that is true, but unfortunately the iPad can't support enough power to run the bigger cards, so you have to use an external battery, fudged in to make it work, or alternatively put the card into a camera and use a USB cable from an iPad adaptor to the camera to read the card (meaning that the camera can't be taking pictures at the same time).
That said, I'm sure I'll still be drinking the cool-aid if the screen really is as good as I expect.
This post has been deleted by its author
The wi-fi only model definitely doesn't have GPS.
As far as I know they use a wi-fi location database to calculate your location.
I read somewhere that one way this database is created/updated is that it periodically gets the location of GPS enabled devices and records the wi-fi hotspots available at their location.
> Suggested Price: £399 (16GB), £479 (32GB), £559 (64GB) all Wi-Fi only
So they sting you £80 for a 16GB upgrade normal retail value £9 delivered.
Then a further £80 for the next 32GB (getting better) which would normally set you back £18 delivered.
Well as the saying goes, a fool and his money...
It's not just the industry.
Have you looked at the price difference between cars with different engine sizes? When I last got a car there was a £2K difference between two models that differ only in engine management software.
If the actual incremental cost of the extra flash was added to the 16GB iPad to get to the 32GB model, no one would bother buying the 16GB iPad and Apple wouldn't bother making it. Similarly for 32GB to 64GB. Then you'd be complaining about spending £450 (roughly) for the one 64GB model and why can't Apple make one with, say, 16GB for 100 quid less ...
It's not based on the cost of the flash in the product. It's based on the fact that people who fork out for the expensive models are 'subsidising' the cheaper models.
Same for cars: a 3 litre engine doesn't cost any more to make than a 2 litre engine, they just do that to keep the entry price lower for the bottom of the range models.
Size... a motorcycle (for instance) can be a single cylinder, twin (V- transverse or inline, or straight or horizontal), triple (v or straight), four - straight , V - transverse or inline, horizontal, square, 6 inline or horizontal, might be a V6 but can't think of one, but Morbedeli made a V8
All of which have entirely different power outputs that is no way related to the configuration.
I agree. The price hike does seem over the top.
The only benefit i can think of the internal only memory is you dont have some of the strange limitations that Android has where some info has to be on the onboard memory and other data can be on the external memory. Which can mean that you dont have enough memory to install an application even though you got tens of gigabyte of space on the SD card.
or does the Infinity Blade II capture look like the 3D is being rendered at 1024x768, and then resampled to 4x the resolution? If you look at edges that are nearly vertical/horizontal, it's strange that the "steps" along the edge always jump by 2 pixels at a time (modulo the blur from the resample).
You can render at the old 1024x768, or at the new 2048x1536. OR at anything in between.
From what actual devs are telling me, if you take your existing 3D game and keep it at 1024x768, it runs about 2X as fast on the iPad3 than on iPad2. BUT if you render it at 2048x1536, it is substantially slower on iPad3... i.e. the 3D rendering capability improvements have not kept up with the 4X pixel count.
This is from real developers running real code. They suggest we might see lots of games running at a reduced resolution (lower than iPad3, higher than iPad2). Or that people will stay at 1024x768 and use the extra power to enable much nicer special effects.
I think one major problem with 4x the pixels is that for 3D you actually need 8x the power (2x 2y 2z axis) This also applies to the texture memory requirements. That is one reason why the Xbox 360 and PS3 rarely run at 1080 lines - they usually render at 720 lines and then scale up.
the fact that Apple bring this out with >HD resolution but noone else is in the ballpark
makes you wonder if the 'hi-Res is the thing!' is on the money. after all, why have more pixels
than you can see (well, at 15 inches or whatever the qualifying 'retina' distance is - they seem to change the goalposts for each device...the iphone4s is 12 inches IIRC) ?
my Kindle (proper e-ink version, not the new backlit Android clone) is very comfortable to read text with and its resolution is way way lower than the new iPad. my 17" PC screen is comfortable to read the web on - and thats only 1440x960 - so, bigger screen and still less resolution.
I think the iPad2 but with the ipad3 battery would have been the winner here.... did they make a tech-change for tech-change sake? the benchmarks make the A5X seem very very slightly slower too... hmmm.
Other manufacturers already have HD screens in the works if not in the shops. So the competition is aware of the issue. Albeit most of them already have higher resolutions than the Ipad 2 so the difference is less marked; my Galaxy 8.9 already has around 170 ppi versus 120 ppi for the old Ipad.
Higher resolution is important for text-rendering and presumably makes it easier when connecting to a larger monitor. The main appeal for tablets is crisper and clearer rendering of text in magazine applications. The aspect ratio is wasted on watching movies as illustrated by the screenshot and that extra screen real estate weighs quite a lot. The competition should push the weight advantage as it is really noticeable if you hold the thing for anything more than two minutes.
E-ink is easier on the eye because of the higher contrast and lack of the backlight. Look closely and text on the Ipad will look nicer - it's a similar effect to different types of paper from newsprint (e-ink) to glossy magazine (Ipad), but your "newsprint" is infinitely more readable in bright sunshine.
Heise notes significant performance issues on things like Google Maps.
It's not fair to compare it to a Kindle; on electronic ink devices the pixels exactly meet up so that a grey line is a continuous black line. On LCD devices the red, green and blue elements have gaps between them so that a grey line is a series of discontinuous half-lit red, green and blue pixels. As a result the electronic ink looks infinitely better at a much lower resolution.
It's the iPad 1, but check out http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/pictures-kindle-and-ipad-screens-under-microscope/ to see the difference under a zoom lens and a microscope.
Anyone contemplating the new iPad should visit their local Apple store (or pc world as I did). Compare them side by side. The screen is much better but worth an upgrade from an Ipad2? I doubt it. More seriously though, those extra pixels and bigger battery generate significantly more heat which you can feel if you hold both models, especially in a store environment where they have been running for hours. This has produced a lot of posts on Apple discussion pages with some people claiming it gets too hot to hold under some circumstances!
I'm upgrading from an iPad 1. My main reason being the lack of RAM (256MB) in the first model. While it just about copes, surfing with multiple tabs quickly becomes a problem with the device forgetting the page I've just looked at because I've switched tabs. The single core CPU is a bit slow at loading web pages too, and the upgrade to iOS 5.1 seems to have made things just a touch slower all round as well.
I'm definitely looking forward to the new screen, but a faster more stable device is also something I'm really looking forward to. I was such a sceptic when Apple announce the iPad, yet it hardly leaves my side these days!
"How do you hold an iPad ? Put it on a flat surface ? Hold it up and get a tired arm ?"
No, you upgrade your arm to a stronger model.
Serious, I DO wonder the same at times. I've tried reading books on the iPad 2, and the new one weighs in about the same as the "Programming Perl" (Camel) book from O'Reilly does. Which I later bought as PDF to *avoid having to carry half a kilo brick around*.
Confuses the hell out of me.
"If you don’t already own an iPad or an Android tablet then the new iPad could be the one that finally breaks down your resistance. It certainly blows away the Android competition and should ensure that the iPad continues to dominate the tablet category – especially with the iPad 2 still on sale at a reduced price."
I see what you're saying here but I'm not interested in either Apple or Android since neither do what I want. My requirement is a device which work work stuff fine (Citrix mainly) as well as web surfing, flash and games. I know that there is a Citrix app now and flash has been added but windows wins because citrix and flash "just work" plus on the gaming front there is far more choice (proper games, not angry birds).
My tablet purchase was the Acer w500 running windows 7 Home Prem.
The citrix "just works", any web stuff "just works" over multiple browsers and gaming it runs retro games fine (Fallout 1/2) plus some modern stuff at a scrape on lowest settings (Civ 5).
Down sides are the windows 7 doesn't work very well with a touch screen interface but I hit what I want with my finger most of the time and for serious stuff a light weight bluetooth keyboard & mouse do the job fine :)
So ipad 3 ? Love the screen... looking forward to seeing it in other andoid/windows tablets though on windows I think I'd be powering up the mouse more often at that res ! Windows really wants more RAM than the w500 has though and the cpu chuggs sometimes.... fix those and I'd upgrade to another win7 tablet but still going to pass on apple/android
.. from which I can see that the iPad has a display that's as good as the crystal clear, vibrant CinemaDisplay on my iMac.... unless I move the browser window to my 2nd monitor - a crappy, dull, washed out old AOC piece of turd. At which point I have to say the new iPad display sucks. ;)
Agree with that! If you want to watch a film, get a laptop which can sit up on its own. It's only a couple of hundred dollars more for a Mac Air if you want tiny and light.
My wife and I have ditched the big TV and gone laptop-only. It actually works quite well. Tablets are for short-term couch-surfing only.
For me, a better display is nice, but not purchase-inducing or even platform-swaying. I would rather have had a gps on the wifi model or a better forward camera or just longer battery life. Video won't be any better and stills at that resolution will need to be stored locally, in order to be loaded with any speed.
Call me when you've got thunderbolt - that is a real upgrade. Even better, lightpeak with an IP stack included. Maybe a 1gig wired ethernet port. I want to use my own storage, not icloud and at these resolutions, wireless is a bit slow.
Well it's another impressive number for the salesdroids to seduce you with.
Perhaps no Android tablets have such a high resolution display because it's really not that important?
There is nowhere left to go with innovation on tablets, so it's the same old nibbling away at your pocket with staged improvements and version iterations.
The next innovation needs to be folding/scrolling screens, which will be the culmination of years of handheld device ergonomics evolution and the fusion of phone, netbook and tablet.
In other words, something that will never happen :)
I just got it last weekend (the 4G version with 32GB).
It does get warm, still nice in the cold weather now but it will suck in summer
Kindle App is much easier to read even in the smallest font size. To the point that it replaces the classic Kindle when at home (Kindle is still unbeatable on the move).
I like that it's a bit thicker, I can hold it better
Can't see a difference when I have high definition pictures so far
Some applications (Mindjet Mindmap) that are drawing on pixel level can be zoomed in more
Skype's animations are a tad slower
The Register's banner in Safari looks pixellated now
I've had no problems whatsoever with the ergonomics of my iPad 2.
For general use I have it portrait with the bottom edge resting on my lap, a hand either side.
For watching movies the 'smart cover' can be turned into a toberlone shape and it stands the iPad upright in landscape orientation. Great for on trains, or for watching a TV show in the bath.
In bed (checking facebook, twitter etc) I tend to use it landscape, leaning against my raised knees.
Find it so much more versatile and comfortable than a laptop. The 'smart cover' was a great investment, as it allows you to stand/lean/hang the iPad in many many ways.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2020