Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

amazing · Mar 23, 2012, 03:28 PM

OK, we hear you that's it's a big issue for you. I think we know who the folks are in the thread that have a beef with the weight. I don't see any problem whatsoever with using a Kindle or Nook for e-reading. The iPad won't be jealous.

OTOH, the thread at Apple dealing with only ONE issue, WiFi, is at 22 pages. The WiFi problem may be very rare, but it's a much more significant problem than the 1.83 oz of additional weight.

In an attempt to move on to a more weighty problem, does anyone with the iPad3 have WiFi problems?

Eug · Mar 23, 2012, 04:08 PM

I find my iPad 2 too big, heavy, and awkward to hold up for long periods of time. A heavier iPad would simply be worse in that regard.

ShortcutToMoncton · Mar 23, 2012, 05:38 PM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

The weight is a huge issue. Not the 2 oz. differences among iPad versions but the large differences with competing products, like triple the weight of a Nook for ereading usage for instance. That is the context.

Of course there are other usages and of course there are downsides to smaller. However for many folks ereading the size/weight is enough disadvantage that they will select a lighter device. My family, for instance, has both sizes and pretty much never ereads on the iPad size. That matters a lot because what one ereads on is what one is inclined to buy content via. Hmm...

In my opinion, your comparison is completely wrong. I don't think eReaders compete with the iPad 3 for market share in the slightest.

I don't know anyone who has made the argument "I was going to buy an iPad 3 for $600, but instead I purchased an eReader for <$170 because it was lighter." I can't even imagine anyone making that argument. If someone is concerned only with eReading, they should buy an eReader. The entire point of the iPad is that it's not an eReader - it's bigger, it's heavier, it can't fit in a pocket. But it's an actual computing device that can also serve as a great eReader. Apple can try to make the iPad more eReader-like - smaller screen, lighter weight, you name it - but a 7" iPad Lite is a completely different product than the current iPad lineup.

You're making an argument for an "iPad Lite" product. That simply isn't what the iPad is. I simply don't see the iPad and eReaders as validly competing products.

Demonhood · Mar 23, 2012, 06:20 PM

And how much money is Apple making from their bookstore? I doubt they're going to create a new model just for that minority of people that use it primarily for ebook reading. I read on the iPad, but I don't have puny arms I guess. The weight has never bothered me.

SierraDragon · Mar 23, 2012, 07:35 PM

The things folks do with tablets comprise a huge range (including many things that have not even been thought of yet). eReading is just one of many usages and the weighty ~10" size is less than ideal for that and for what I call walkaround. I used it as an example only; please note I also included

...walkaround apps which are so important in the enterprise and often also work better on smaller/lighter.

The tablet market is large and growing rapidly. My suggestion is that Apple should address that multifaceted rapidly growing market with multiple tablet designs rather than with just one. An ~8" iPad would compete better in some segments than a ~10" does.

Many folks do more than one thing with their tablet. Suggesting that ereading, or counting widgets in a warehouse, or logging construction jobsite safety compliance, or other walkaround usages should only be done on non-Apple devices because Apple only does 10" is IMO dumb. It is a big market space and growing.

-Allen

Wiskedjak · Mar 23, 2012, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by amazing

In an attempt to move on to a more weighty problem, does anyone with the iPad3 have WiFi problems?

I see what you did there!

The Godfather · Mar 23, 2012, 08:08 PM

We need an iPad Air, or an iPod Touch Pro.

Either way, it should not take 15 hours to charge it up.

::maroma:: · Mar 23, 2012, 08:10 PM

Wow, this is interesting to watch unfold. I can say this for certain, Apple is not going to do anything about the weight and the warming of the new iPad. Its how they designed it to be. If there are some people (and yes its "some", the majority is doesn't have a problem here) are not happy with either of those issues, they are free to return their iPads within the 15 day period. That's pretty much it.

With any advance in technology, there are tradeoffs. You want an amazingly hi-def screen? You want faster processors? More RAM? Really fast data access? ...And you want it all for cheaper and you want the device to be lighter and run cooler? Not going to happen.

The new iPad is much lighter than the iPad 1. Its very slightly heavier than the iPad 2. There are VERY good reasons for that. Apple didn't say "We think people thought the iPad 2 was just too light, so we put in some extra junk inside to make it heavier. We think you'll love it!"

The new iPad is also slightly warmer than the iPad 1 and iPad 2 when doing heavy tasks (lets make that clear as well, its not warm all the time). Does it get so hot that it burns the skin? Not in any case I've seen yet. Does it get hotter than a laptop? Nope. Hotter than the iPhone does when doing heavy tasks? Nope. It just happens to be warmer.

I am willing to put money on these 2 complaints being a total non-story within a month, probably less. Its just not a real issue for the majority. A vocal minority is making this headline worthy for bad blogs who want clicks.

I love my new iPad. It gets warm, but I'm ok with that. Its slightly heavier but I don't even notice unless I have an iPad 2 in my other hand. And everyone I know who got one has the same opinions on those 2 things.

amazing · Mar 23, 2012, 10:32 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

We need an iPad Air, or an iPod Touch Pro.

Either way, it should not take 15 hours to charge it up.

There's talk that the iPad needs a magsafe charger...the 10 W charger isn't sufficient.

Oops! that might make it heavier!

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 03:19 AM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

The weight is a huge issue. Not the 2 oz. differences among iPad versions but the large differences with competing products, like triple the weight of a Nook for ereading usage for instance. That is the context.

Of course there are other usages and of course there are downsides to smaller. However for many folks ereading the size/weight is enough disadvantage that they will select a lighter device. My family, for instance, has both sizes and pretty much never ereads on the iPad size. That matters a lot because what one ereads on is what one is inclined to buy content via. Hmm...

Not to mention walkaround apps which are so important in the enterprise and often also work better on smaller/lighter.

IMO Apple will not discontinue ~10" but will add a smaller/lighter version. If I was Apple I would make special cannot-pass-up content deals available with purchase of a smaller iPad that conditioned new users into the process of buying content using the iPad. Something like buy an iPad get half off on your first 10 ebooks.

-Allen

This is a good post. I don't agree that Apple will launch a smaller iPad, but that there's a context here in terms of weight in the tablet industry. Today, a lot of tablets are lighter than Apple's iPad, even ones that have a large screen size like the iPad. Granted, they don't have the high res screen, etc. I know that. But for reading it's hard not to want something light, particularly since most tablets out there today have gotten really, really light. Apple needs to figure this out moving forward. They've been wildly successful with the iPad, and the iPad is great, but moving forward they have to get this weight down. It's just a tank.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 03:24 AM

Originally Posted by SierraDragon

The things folks do with tablets comprise a huge range (including many things that have not even been thought of yet). eReading is just one of many usages and the weighty ~10" size is less than ideal for that and for what I call walkaround. I used it as an example only; please note I also included

The tablet market is large and growing rapidly. My suggestion is that Apple should address that multifaceted rapidly growing market with multiple tablet designs rather than with just one. An ~8" iPad would compete better in some segments than a ~10" does.

Many folks do more than one thing with their tablet. Suggesting that ereading, or counting widgets in a warehouse, or logging construction jobsite safety compliance, or other walkaround usages should only be done on non-Apple devices because Apple only does 10" is IMO dumb. It is a big market space and growing.

-Allen

Actually, eReading is one of the major, top uses of a tablet. If a tablet becomes poor at eReading... that is, if the experience isn't good for whatever reason, the whole existence of a tablet computer makes less and less sense. Reading is what a tablet must be really, really good at. Unfortunately, the iPad is bordering on being too heavy and bulky to be a good eReader. This takes away from the value of the device in terms of how useful it is to people in the real world.

If you don't think Apple takes eReading seriously, you're mistaken. I'm in the industry. They're really pushing iBooks with their Author tool and support for the latest in eBook format standards. They know a tablet = eReading. They're putting a lot of energy into eBooks and taking direct aim at Amazon.

And as much as we think you can do with a tablet, it's really a small list of things.

Reading (books, magazines, PDFs)
Surfing the Web
Email
Video

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 04:07 AM

I just thought I'd point a few things out.

First, Jay Leno and the iMit: Using something like an oven mit to hold the new iPad. Funny.

Second, an overheating thread over at Apple's discussion forums has ballooned to 41 pages and counting:

https://discussions.apple.com/thread...art=0&tstart=0

An interesting snippet from that thread:

I went to the Apple store with the same question and the genius bar folks told me very clearly, the new iPad will be much warmer on continuous use or grapichs heavy use compared to the iPad2 and that is something they have been conveyed by Apple. [sic]

I went to FutureShop tonight. 2 iPad 2s on display. 2 iPad 3s on display. I felt both the iPad 2s first. Ran my hands all over each one. Not warm at all. Basically room temperature.

The iPad 3s were "warm". Not hot, but "warm". On each unit nothing was really open. Again, I think the heat issue is very real and has nothing to do with Apps and everything to do with hardware. Imagine having to use these in hotter environments... I don't know... the warmth... the thicker units... the extra weight... the much longer battery charge times... I'm not sure Jobs would've approved this one.

Wiskedjak · Mar 24, 2012, 10:16 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

Unfortunately, the iPad is bordering on being too heavy and bulky to be a good eReader.

Now you're saying it's too bulky? How would you reduce the bulk of a device that's 9.4mm thin?

Eug · 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by ::maroma::

Wow, this is interesting to watch unfold. I can say this for certain, Apple is not going to do anything about the weight and the warming of the new iPad. Its how they designed it to be.

I'm pretty sure Apple will do something about it... which is to release a new iPad in 2013 with a CPU that's manufactured on a smaller 28 nm process, with a new LTE chipset as well, and a smaller battery. It will not only be significantly faster than the current iPad (which for CPU speed is no faster than my less-than-speedy iPad 2), it will also be cooler and lighter.

Neither the weight nor the heat are what Apple wanted. The huge battery is a step backwards, and reminds me of the liquid cooling of the G5. Yes, they were designed that way, but they were designed way because they were forced to do that due to limitations in manufacturing processes at that specific time, and also in the case of the iPad the need to upgrade to LTE.

To put it another way, they didn't increase the size of the battery to increase battery life. They increased the size of the battery because they were forced to, and improvements in manufacturing in the next few months will allow them to decrease the battery size again in the next iPad back to something closer to what the iPad 2 has.

abbaZaba · Mar 24, 2012, 12:29 PM

we know it's ~1.7ounces heavier, what are we looking at for the temperature differences?

I've not gotten my hands on an iPad 3 yet but I can't help but jump to the ridiculousness of these claims. An apple weighs 6-8oz.... the weight increase is less than one third of a piece of fruit. you need to reevaluate your life if you can't handle the additional weight of one third of an apple.

Eug · Mar 24, 2012, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by abbaZaba

we know it's ~1.7ounces heavier, what are we looking at for the temperature differences?

I've not gotten my hands on an iPad 3 yet but I can't help but jump to the ridiculousness of these claims. An apple weighs 6-8oz.... the weight increase is less than one third of a piece of fruit. you need to reevaluate your life if you can't handle the additional weight of one third of an apple.

Try holding up just one apple in front of your face for half an hour.

BTW, that was the same argument that was made in the glory days of the laptop... and now look at where we are.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Now you're saying it's too bulky? How would you reduce the bulk of a device that's 9.4mm thin?

First, battery needs to hold more energy and be lighter... all this but it needs to be smaller. Now you've just made the device lighter and thinner. Nano batteries are one way of doing this.

The other thing is the glass. The glass is the heaviest component on the iPad. They've already opted for thinner, lighter glass this time around. I think Gorilla 3 will be even thinner and lighter.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 12:43 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Try holding up just one apple in front of your face for half an hour.

BTW, that was the same argument that was made in the glory days of the laptop... and now look at where we are.

That's right. It's literally troubling that the iPad 3 is heavier and thicker. It's counter evolutionary. It just illustrates something: Apple simply couldn't figure out how to put a Retina Display in the iPad without increasing the thickness and weight. It's two steps backwards and I'm almost certain Steve would never have allowed this.

I agree that Tim Cook's ultimate test will be the iPhone 5. If that makes a bunch of compromises, I don't think people will be able to ignore that Apple has begun to slip without Jobs around.

abbaZaba · Mar 24, 2012, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Try holding up just one apple in front of your face for half an hour.

BTW, that was the same argument that was made in the glory days of the laptop... and now look at where we are.

if you're standing holding your iPad in front of your face while looking straight ahead to use it, then my point stands. you need to reevaluate your life

Wiskedjak · Mar 24, 2012, 01:09 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

First, battery needs to hold more energy and be lighter... all this but it needs to be smaller. Now you've just made the device lighter and thinner. Nano batteries are one way of doing this.

The other thing is the glass. The glass is the heaviest component on the iPad. They've already opted for thinner, lighter glass this time around. I think Gorilla 3 will be even thinner and lighter.

Sure. But, really, you're mostly talking about *weight*. "Bulky" suggests "taking up too much space". Are you saying that the iPad is too thick at 9.4mm?

I certainly agree that, as an eReader, the iPad could do to be smaller (both in thickness as well as footprint) and lighter, but as a computer I find it to be more than acceptable in both size and weigh.

I'm confused, though. Back in November, you described the iPad as "razor thin". Is 0.8mm the dividing line between "razor thin" and "bulky"?

Originally Posted by freudling

An iPad weighs 1.32 pounds and is razor thin. To say it isn't portable is the most ridiculous statement I've seen in the past 22 hours.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 01:10 PM

Originally Posted by abbaZaba

if you're standing holding your iPad in front of your face while looking straight ahead to use it, then my point stands. you need to reevaluate your life

Why does the bickering continue on here? Reality: the new iPad, NEW iPad, is thicker and heavier than the pervious generation. This is counter-Apple.

Interesting article over at 9to5 about how the new Apple TV UI is a design Jobs threw out 5 years ago. About how there's nobody left at Apple to just say "no". And my god is the new Apple TV UI ugly.

http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-medi...-35160082.html

Former Apple TV Engineer: New Apple TV UI is actually one Steve Jobs threw away five years ago | 9to5Mac | Apple Intelligence

abbaZaba · Mar 24, 2012, 01:20 PM

it has a freaking quad-core graphics processor. holy frijoles, if the NEW iPad hadn't had a retina display you'd be complaining about that. SOMETHING has to drive the fancy, never-before-seen-in-a-consumer-device display and SOMETHING has to power the GPU. it's 1.7 ounces heavier (one-third of an APPLE) and 0.03 inches thicker....3 HUNDREDTHS of an inch thicker.

you're complaining for the sake of complaining and it's ridiculous

Eug · Mar 24, 2012, 01:32 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

Former Apple TV Engineer: New Apple TV UI is actually one Steve Jobs threw away five years ago | 9to5Mac | Apple Intelligence

I really dislike the new Apple TV UI esp. compared to the previous one. However, Apple TV is fairly useless to me anyway so I'm not really concerned. My main use for Apple TV was Netflix, and the occasional movie I encoded for it, but otherwise it just sits there. In fact, I'll use it even less now since I just added a Netflix capable Blu-ray player in the same room.

I was considering replacing it with a 1080p-capable model but that seemed stupid considering how little I used it. Then I thought of getting a different media player, but having the Blu-ray player makes that unnecessary too.

Originally Posted by abbaZaba

SOMETHING has to drive the fancy, never-before-seen-in-a-consumer-device display and SOMETHING has to power the GPU.

Thank you Captain Obvious. Like I said before, the design intent will be in the next model, which will have its core chips built on a smaller process, so that a quad-core GPU (and a higher speed, or quad-core CPU) will require much less power, and therefore a much smaller battery.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 01:36 PM

Originally Posted by abbaZaba

it has a freaking quad-core graphics processor. holy frijoles, if the NEW iPad hadn't had a retina display you'd be complaining about that. SOMETHING has to drive the fancy, never-before-seen-in-a-consumer-device display and SOMETHING has to power the GPU. it's 1.7 ounces heavier (one-third of an APPLE) and 0.03 inches thicker....3 HUNDREDTHS of an inch thicker.

you're complaining for the sake of complaining and it's ridiculous

How many times have we heard this? Nobody cares what it "has" to have. Apple is supposed to figure out the engineering and make innovations such that design leads and products evolve in that context. Design did not lead here, they made design compromises. Nobody cares that it needs extra horsepower to power a new screen. They just want, thin, light, fast mobile products. It's up to Apple to innovate the engineering to realize their design goals and evolve. They didn't do that entirely here. It's the first time I've really seen this with Apple. But there's one explanation: Jobs is gone.

Eug · Mar 24, 2012, 01:40 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

How many times have we heard this? Nobody cares what it "has" to have. Apple is supposed to figure out the engineering and make innovations such that design leads and products evolve in that context. Design did not lead here, they made design compromises. Nobody cares that it needs extra horsepower to power a new screen. They just want, thin, light, fast mobile products. It's up to Apple to innovate the engineering to realize their design goals and evolve. They didn't do that entirely here. It's the first time I've really seen this with Apple. But there's one explanation: Jobs is gone.

I agree it's a design compromise, but this is definitely not the first time Apple has done it. As I mentioned before, the most glaring example is Apple's choice to go with liquid cooling in the G5 Power Macs.

That said, I don't blame Apple for either choice. In both instances they were stuck between a rock and hard place, and had to do something.

abbaZaba · Mar 24, 2012, 01:54 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

They just want, thin, light, fast mobile products.

who in there right mind is not going to describe the iPad3 in such a way? I challenge you to even be able to eyeball the difference in 3 hundredths of an inch. the iPhone 4 and 4S are the exact same dimensions, in fact the 4S is heavier by 3 grams. I guess they failed there too.

The point about Jobs being gone and Apple pushing a 5 year old rejected UI is a much more valid point. Perhaps this is the first drop on the rollercoaster of questionable UI elements in future products. Now that's something to talk about, not the addition of one third of the weight of a piece of fruit.

Wiskedjak · Mar 24, 2012, 02:11 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

I agree it's a design compromise, but this is definitely not the first time Apple has done it. As I mentioned before, the most glaring example is Apple's choice to go with liquid cooling in the G5 Power Macs.

There are also examples where Apple let Design lead to the detriment of the customer:
- Antenna-gate, where the aesthetic of an exposed antenna led to poor reception and required a lot of back-peddling and customer appeasement on Apple's part.
- PowerBook (Firewire 800) had a screen that was too thin, resulting in white spots on the screen. A millimetre thicker would have eliminated the problem. (Apple Launches PowerBook "White Spot" Repair Program | News | The Mac Observer)
- iMac G4 had an award winning design with it's cantilever arm holding the display ... an arm that could rarely hold the display straight, particularly after a year or two of use.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 03:10 PM

The reality: you don't have to make any compromises in terms of design if you innovate the engineering. Apple has lead the world in this way for years. But they compromised literally too much here.

3 grams heavier iPhone 4S compared to iPhone 4? Obviously can live with it. It's a very small increase in weight. The iPad 3 is 51 grams heavier than the iPad 2, and .6 mm thicker. Proportionately, that's 16x more of an increase in weight compared to the increase in weight of the iPhone 4S vs. the iPhone 4. Thickness wise, that's also an increase by an order of 6.4%.

It's not so hot. Even 9to5mac was slightly put off by it, and other reviewers have made comments about the thickness and weight as well. Then there's the warmth on top of this. It's really great about the screen but the iPad has taken some big hits in this context. Don't even get me started with how long it takes to charge. It's bloody brutal. Hours and hours at the hotel last night... it makes it less mobile.

amazing · Mar 24, 2012, 03:21 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

Don't even get me started with how long it takes to charge. It's bloody brutal. Hours and hours at the hotel last night... it makes it less mobile.

Ahh! Finally, a valid criticism! 3 Cheers, perhaps this thread will get back on track!

Eug · Mar 24, 2012, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by amazing

Ahh! Finally, a valid criticism! 3 Cheers, perhaps this thread will get back on track!

This was already mentioned many posts ago, and you even responded to it. Furthermore, it has everything to do with the battery size.

The Godfather · Mar 24, 2012, 04:10 PM

Why haven't OLED displays evolve beyond Android 4" phones. They surely have the power issue under control.

Eug · Mar 24, 2012, 07:23 PM

Update on the Apple TV user interface:

The new UI shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. There is a clear effort at Apple to make everything match the look and feel of their popular iOS products – starting with Lion and increasing momentum with Mountain Lion.

To be clear – he didn’t like the original grid. This was before the iPhone was popular and before the iPad even existed.

Given that the iPad is far more successful than the AppleTV, migrating the AppleTV to look more like the iPad was probably a very smart move – even if some of the users of the old UI don’t prefer the new one.

mduell · Mar 24, 2012, 07:30 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

3 grams heavier iPhone 4S compared to iPhone 4? Obviously can live with it. It's a very small increase in weight. The iPad 3 is 51 grams heavier than the iPad 2, and .6 mm thicker. Proportionately, that's 16x more of an increase in weight compared to the increase in weight of the iPhone 4S vs. the iPhone 4. Thickness wise, that's also an increase by an order of 6.4%.

The iPhone weight increase wasn't an issue because it wasn't too heavy to begin with.

The iPad is. You can't comfortably hold it in one hand for a typical use duration. Adding any weight does nothing to alleviate this.

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 08:47 PM

Originally Posted by mduell

The iPhone weight increase wasn't an issue because it wasn't too heavy to begin with.

The iPad is. You can't comfortably hold it in one hand for a typical use duration. Adding any weight does nothing to alleviate this.

Imagine you being in charge of the engineering team. Hey guys, let's add another 1.5 lbs. of material and have 25 hours of battery life. It won't matter to the user because it was too heavy to begin with! Weight doesn't matter at all! We shouldn't try to make it lighter, our users don't care. I really understand physics! Trust me!

freudling · Mar 24, 2012, 08:50 PM

Originally Posted by Eug

Update on the Apple TV user interface:

The new UI shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. There is a clear effort at Apple to make everything match the look and feel of their popular iOS products – starting with Lion and increasing momentum with Mountain Lion.

To be clear – he didn’t like the original grid. This was before the iPhone was popular and before the iPad even existed.

Given that the iPad is far more successful than the AppleTV, migrating the AppleTV to look more like the iPad was probably a very smart move – even if some of the users of the old UI don’t prefer the new one.

There're several reviewers and user reviews that think the new UI is ugly. I also think it's ugly. Just because a grid layout works on a mobile phone doesn't mean it translates well onto a television. In fact, it doesn't. It looks terrible. The breakage comes from the fact that you don't touch them as icons on your TV. It works for a touchscreen device like a mobile phone but the interface doesn't make as much sense on a television that driven by a remote control, or, perhaps, voice control like Siri. This new UI is just wrong.

aristotles · Mar 25, 2012, 12:40 AM

Speaking as some who actually has a 4g iPad, and iPad 2 wifi and a previous owner of the iPad 1 3G, the new 4G model is still lighter than the Wifi iPad 1 let alone the 3G model.

I also have not found the iPad to be overly warm.

freudling · Mar 25, 2012, 03:10 AM

Originally Posted by aristotles

Speaking as some who actually has a 4g iPad, and iPad 2 wifi and a previous owner of the iPad 1 3G, the new 4G model is still lighter than the Wifi iPad 1 let alone the 3G model.

I also have not found the iPad to be overly warm.

Who cares if it's still lighter than an iPad 1. It's heavier and thicker than the previous generation. It's just a step backwards.

freudling · Mar 25, 2012, 03:19 AM

While the screen is nowhere near as good now as a Retina Display, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (released last summer) is only 565 grams and 8.6 mm thick with a 1280 x 800 screen. I was playing with one yesterday. It makes me yearn for an iPad that is as light and thin as this is.

I'm hoping at least one battery company won't sell out to big oil so their technology makes it to market. Apple needs to focus a ton of energy on finding groundbreaking battery technology and buying it. By miniaturizing the batteries they'll solve the one big problem they're having now in this age of mobility. We've got all this great tech: high res touchscreens, powerful mobile chips, flash memory... but our battery technology sucks. The iPad is a giant battery. It's hilarious.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 25, 2012, 04:15 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

Who cares if it's still lighter than an iPad 1.

The market.

People kinda seem to be liking them.

You guys are going a leeetle bit overboard over this.

freudling · Mar 25, 2012, 04:40 AM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

The market.

People kinda seem to be liking them.

You guys are going a leeetle bit overboard over this.

We understand they're killing in the market. But that doesn't mean the device can't be criticized.

subego · Mar 25, 2012, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

The market.

People kinda seem to be liking them.

You guys are going a leeetle bit overboard over this.

I wonder if people at Apple complain their sacks of cash are too heavy.

Spheric Harlot · Mar 25, 2012, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

We understand they're killing in the market. But that doesn't mean the device can't be criticized.

I didn't say that the device can't be criticized.

I said that people appear to be liking them, and that you guys are going overboard over this.

Emphasis mine:

Originally Posted by freudling

How many times have we heard this? Nobody cares what it "has" to have. Apple is supposed to figure out the engineering and make innovations such that design leads and products evolve in that context. Design did not lead here, they made design compromises. Nobody cares that it needs extra horsepower to power a new screen. They just want, thin, light, fast mobile products. It's up to Apple to innovate the engineering to realize their design goals and evolve. They didn't do that entirely here. It's the first time I've really seen this with Apple. But there's one explanation: Jobs is gone.

Such pathos.

There's so much over-the-top bullshit here that I'm not even going to START refuting it, other than by repeating:

People seem to be liking the new iPad.

A lot.

Like, massively a lot.

Like, more than the previous set of design compromises sold as the "iPad 2".

(In fact, it appears that people don't *just* want thin, light, fast mobile products. They want the retina display.)

Spheric Harlot · Mar 25, 2012, 04:55 AM

Originally Posted by subego

I wonder if people at Apple complain their sacks of cash are too heavy.

Poor guys.

Luckily, they finally have a total flop at their hands with this overweight cooking pad of an iPad 3.

freudling · Mar 25, 2012, 11:34 AM

Emphasis mine.

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot

I didn't say that the device can't be criticized.

I said that people appear to be liking them, and that you guys are going overboard over this.

Emphasis mine:

Such pathos.

There's so much over-the-top bullshit here that I'm not even going to START refuting it, other than by repeating:

People seem to be liking the new iPad.

A lot.

Like, massively a lot.

Like, more than the previous set of design compromises sold as the "iPad 2".

(In fact, it appears that people don't *just* want thin, light, fast mobile products. They want the retina display.)

The emphasis was random. Emphasis mine!

Wiskedjak · Mar 25, 2012, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by freudling

While the screen is nowhere near as good now as a Retina Display, the Samsung Galaxy Tab 10.1 (released last summer) is only 565 grams and 8.6 mm thick with a 1280 x 800 screen. I was playing with one yesterday. It makes me yearn for an iPad that is as light and thin as this is.

I'm hoping at least one battery company won't sell out to big oil so their technology makes it to market. Apple needs to focus a ton of energy on finding groundbreaking battery technology and buying it. By miniaturizing the batteries they'll solve the one big problem they're having now in this age of mobility. We've got all this great tech: high res touchscreens, powerful mobile chips, flash memory... but our battery technology sucks. The iPad is a giant battery. It's hilarious.

The only way this could get more fun to watch would be for freudling to start recommending the Kindle Fire for it's size and weight!

The Godfather · Mar 25, 2012, 11:53 AM

I'd recommend an iPad 2.

Eug · Mar 25, 2012, 12:07 PM

If you already own an iPad 2, I'd recommend just waiting for the next model, which should be a much better overall upgrade than the current iPad, even with its amazing new screen.

Me, I'm probably just going to buy a 7" Android 4.0 device this year.

freudling · Mar 25, 2012, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

The only way this could get more fun to watch would be for freudling to start recommending the Kindle Fire for it's size and weight!

I recommend the Kindle Fire over the iPad 3. Emphasis mine!

Spheric Harlot · Mar 25, 2012, 12:11 PM

Originally Posted by freudling

The emphasis was random.

That would indeed appear to be the primary difference between your posts and mine.

freudling · Mar 25, 2012, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by The Godfather

I'd recommend an iPad 2.

In all seriousness so would I. It's only $399, is lighter and thinner than the iPad 3, and on my tests they're both about the same speed in terms of overall performance. Although the iPad 3 seems to be a bit jerky on the odd Webpage and it's weird.

But if you have to have the Retina Display then it's the iPad 3.

I'm anxious to see sales figures for the iPad 2 ending quarter.