Apple unveiled its second-generation iPad on Wednesday morning, called simply the iPad 2. Apple chief executive Steve Jobs, away from Apple on medical leave, did the honors, as was rumored yesterday. According to live blogs from Macworld and ArsTechnica (for some reason, The Register is not invited to Apple press events), the …
iMovie for iPad. Awesome.
gotta get me one of those........... so much better than all those rumoured specs! totally revolutionary product!!!!!!!
no new iphone?
is there a separate event for the new iphone/ipods? or are there just not going to be new ones this year???
The new iPhone is normally launched in June/July and the iPod is normally launched in September/October.
they should now make the thing round and shaped like a frizbee. Maybe it's just the angle of the product shot but I can see it being thrown twixt iPadders like a frizbee - here catch! Or maybe broaden the customer base by making a Tea Tray version for the older generation ;-) (crumbs, what an idea)
Needs a very sharp edge on the case
...so that a mis-throw can decapitate some of those iPadders.
More interested in the iOS 4.3 update frankly...streaming from itunes libraries at last! The one feature I wanted from day 1...
I know I shouldn't feed trolls but...
I am so impressed how quickly you managed to get your disparaging comment posted on a device you don't care about.
Commercially it looks like a strong V2 of a device. Faster, lighter, new features.
Soooooo what's your problem? I bet you were one of the "it's just a big phone" brigade weren't you? Or they cost too much? Yeah they'll never catch on. Mark my words.
I'm an early adopter and I like gadgets so bought the 1st gen as soon as it came out. It paid for itself 4 times over in less than a day after showing just one client how they could optimise their website for tablet devices. Happy days!
Always sad to see pathological prejudice with neither sense nor reason.
It's a perfectly good product serving a particular market. Just because YOU don't like it doesn't make those who do 'retards'. By resorting to such namecalling, you destroy any credibility you may have.
You mean thinner but the same weight?
I agree with everything else :-)
Well, from my calculation it's around 10% lighter. Okay, the iPad has hardly spent the last year with its fingers down its throut, but I'd take that.
Incidentally, how much does a Xoom weigh?
I call BS
The issues involved in making a website work with tablet input methods were not understood on the first day of iPad's release.
@E2 You forget that iPhans are ...
blessed with talent from Him. Remember, they work 'miracles'.
Maybe the earlier version of the web site was crap, anyway, and anything by way of improvements would make it look good.
From what I remember people had to take a few days before figuring out how to exploit the first model for business.
Size is(n't) everything. The most appealing tablet to me is the Galaxy Tab in that forbidden zone where Jobs says not to go.....
I don't know how much a Xoom weighs. But does it weigh more or less after the chipsets are upgraded in the "aftermarket" as I've been hearing....
In the end, it's not compelling. I've been in the Walled Garden and I can't find the wood for the trees in the Chaff, sorry, AppStore.
Many of the issues (touch input being a good example) had been hit with the previous Apple fondle devices (iPod Touch and iPhone). The pad offers bigger screen area, but it is, after all, an upscaled iPod touch, just like any stood tablet will be an upscaled stood phone.
Don't swallow all of the hype.
no BS (this time...)
True story. Promise.
I happened to be in the right place at the right time and yes the existing site was very poor. I didn't spec out or perform any work on the day but i did give indicative figures and they were approved so like I said, Happy Days :)
Now quit picking on me and go back to Stevo ;-)
loving the 70s sci-fi case alot
very pretty tablet - personally I was tempted by that Archos 101 review last week
I thought my life was complete when I got my ipad 1
But how wrong I was. I now see that my life is hopelessly incomplete and simply must acquire version 2 asap.
I am newbe in this forum
I think your life may be complete when you get ipad 1 . May be or not?
Why "iPad 2" ?
Should it be "i 2 Pad" ?
From the one pic it looks very like the device shown a few hours ago that all u guys said was a photoshoped fake.
and where are we on the capability to browse all the web, flash et all
Oh, the thing one blocks for adverts, spam, pointless animations and no battery life.
Flash - life is better without it. Steve said so:-)
Is that Steve Jobs looked well.
I hope he gets over his health problems and lives a long life.
Not the real thing ...
most likely a body double to fool iPhans.
Stalin had one (Felix Dadaev), Hitler (Gustav Weler), Churchill, too. Saddam had more than one.
So why not Jobs?
Look, it's revolutionary! Oh wait ... BBs have done that for quite some time. In fact it's called a "Holster" state and the BB OS supports that as well.
Yay for "innovation"!
I'll admit to mixed feelings over this
On the one hand, the specs look pretty nice, and I am somewhat interested in experementing with something in a tablet format.
For me (and I freely admit, this is not a main-stream opinion. so-much-so that it makes little bussness sense for Apple to cater to it.) in experementing with different ways to use the form-factor. I want to hack the thing. I want to see if there are innovative ways we can use it. So to me, it's a non-starter. Too bad, but I want something that isn't so locked down, and it's not worth my time to work around it.
$69 for a leather cover
Cheap at double the price!
Blah blah iPad 2 blah blah
"Steve Jobs, by the way, looked good."
Only bit of the article I cared about. Glad to hear it.
lighter and thinner?
Is that jobsy or the ipad?
Looks like a nice redesign of the product. A bit less like just an oversized iPhone. I might drop down to Covent Garden and give it a little fondle when they're in.
I'm not sure I can justify the cost given that I've yet to find a compelling use case for my work. Perhaps this generation will fix the "forearms of steel" complaint which stopped me lusting after the previous lot.
Certainly a solid version 2.0.
Now, I'm used to being on the Daily Mail website and having my neo-liberal views on basic human rights like not being executed downvoted. But I'm desperately struggling to see what was objectionable about this post.
Was I not polarised enough? I'm failing to see how "Yes, this upgrade looks like an upgrade - I still can't find a useful niche for it in my household though" could cause two real, breathing, thinking human beings so much objection that their thumbs turned downwards in disgust.
Maybe I just don't understand how to comment on these apple articles yet.
I'd be very interested in seeing some breakdowns of markdown/markup ratio vs subject. The Registards could put a little graph next to the "Click to Comment" button so we can see a preview of the shitslinging in the monkey pit. This would be very helpful so we can come in and shake the tree in Global Warming and Apple conversations.
Who pays who?
"Apple has now paid more than $2bn to developers"
That should read "developers have now paid more than $1bn to Apple", shirley?
Probably worth checking your maths on that one
If you want to phrase it that way around, it should read "App Store users have now paid around $857m to Apple".
The $1 bn figure was deliberate as I seem to remember that the developer program will set you back $100 a year.
Now app store users vs devs? Well, given that the dev sets the price, and then Apple takes 30% of that, it's clearly the dev paying Apple. The user paying Apple would be Apple charging the user a fee on top of the price set by the dev.
It's an important difference for a few reasons. For example most user are not aware of that tax. And the burden of pricing the apps so that the store can function (i.e., calculating what the Apple tax should be to stay acceptable to the customer) falls to the dev, not to Apple. If Apple was charging the user, the devs would have to price their apps so that they sell, and that's it. Then Apple would have to set their tax so that the store does not get deserted by customers. With the current system the devs do all the work (and cannot even offer the apps at a lower price elsewhere, thanks to the new T&C).
So I still thing I'm right, the devs are paying Apple. But feel free to prove me wrong.
The developer programme — giving access to the App Store, amongst other things — does indeed cost US$100/year and is a direct charge to the developer. So it's probably a safe assumption that they've collected US$1bn though that route, that being just 10,000,000 developer subscriptions worldwide.
I don't agree with you otherwise though. The user gives their money to Apple. Apple gives some money to developers. So it's definitely not the developers paying Apple per application in any legal sense. Apple handle hosting, payment processing and provide a limited amount of publicity. That's the traditional role of a shop, and claiming that developers are paying Apple because of the 30% cut is like saying that anybody with any product in any shop is paying that shop. So, even if true by the test you're applying, it doesn't sound like there's any grounds on which to single Apple out as doing something wrong.
A title is required
"It's an important difference for a few reasons. For example most user are not aware of that tax. And the burden of pricing the apps so that the store can function (i.e., calculating what the Apple tax should be to stay acceptable to the customer) falls to the dev, not to Apple."
Um...isn't that the way all stores work?
I'm sorry, did you think that if you buy a copy of Microsoft Office from Best Buy or Amazon or someplace, not all of the money goes to the developer, right? That's kind of the way stores work. You buy a product at a store, some of the money goes to the store and some of it goes to the developer. Stores have always worked that way, at least here in the Colonies. Isn't that the case in the UK?
I feel like I'm missing something. Every product you purchase at any store, be it software or bread or computers or cars or small remote-controlled toy aircraft, always has some percentage of the sale price go to the store. Why is it exactly that everyone complains about this when it's downloads but not when it's buttermilk pancakes?
@TomH and Franklin
No, it's not how all shops work. Shops buy stock from their suppliers at the price defined by the supplier (OK, it's a bit more complicated but let's simplify), then add their margin. So the customer pays for the margin, as the supplier can sell it's stuff through other channels, or direct, without the overhead.
Apple's T&C prevents the devs from selling their work without the Apple tax (i.e. direct, at a lower price). So indeed Apple insists that the dev pays the tax, not the customer. Let's suppose a dev wants to sell an app for, say, 1.30. Through the apple app store Apple gets 0.30 and the dev 1. But should the dev want to sell his app direct, he has to sell it for 1.30 or he's banned from the app store. So by selling direct he gets 1.30, and by selling through the store he gets 1. The customer pays 1.30 regardless of the channel. How is it not the dev paying the tax?
Also, keep in mind that Apple doesn't buy the app (as a brick-and-mortar shop does). They're just processing the payment on behalf of the developper. That's especially true for publishers, as in this case Apple's servers don't even see what is sold. For games and fart apps, at least Apple takes care of the distribution (i.e. hosting and bandwidth), so the 30% *might* be considered fair (although it's still paid by the dev, not the customer, due to the price-fixing). For publishers, Apple only hosts the app, the bulk of the hosting and half the bandwidth costs is paid by the publisher (the other half of the bandwidth costs is paid for by the carrier, i.e. ultimately the customer, but not Apple).
Analogies with Tesco are really really dumb.
Must take my words back, when, last year, I was musing about the uses for Ipads. Saint Jobs has pulled it off and in the process created a whole new industry based around these tablets. Imagine his contribution to the economy in a recession ridden world.
Hail the saint for such audacity and vision. Great marketeer in typically American fashion- Sure.
I still however wonder about all the poeple who are buying and bought tablets. What are they really using this for?
Glorifed Ipod/IIPhone? Cant impress a woman with the bulk. Far sexier models and handsets out there.
Glorified ebook reader? Many cheaper ones around.
Glorified MP3 player? Even cheaper ones around.
Glorified Photo Frame? Even more cheaper ones out there.
Or just a glorified wirless Internet access device with a high Data charge element with operators. And the snob value that goes with it?
Someone enlighten me please.
Flames welcome too!
iPad owner here...
It's an instant-on small computer which lives in the lounge. Great for:
- checking stuff on the internet
- games (lots, and many are very, very good)
- multiplayer games with the rest of the family (Marble Mixer is great fun for four)
- education (eg. helping kids with maths homework and need a graphplot: QuickGraph)
- music apps: some of the music apps use the multitouch interface in very imaginative ways
- excellent Apple TV remote app
(quick list off the top of my head)
Ok, most of this you can do with a laptop - but none of this requires a permanent, physical keyboard. And don't forget, this is about the size of a small magazine, is instant-on and has a battery life of over ten hours.
When I got ours there was an initial rush in using it, but it's settled down now to the point where it needs recharging every three / four days. It's just really, really useful.
+1 for the question
I remember predicting that it would sell very well despite the lack of any compelling function. That's pretty much the definition of a gadget. People get it because it's cool, not because it does anything that cannot be done more efficiently and at a cheaper price by another device.
People do buy indoor miniature copters, too. And Bat'leth.
And cats. Cats are organic iPads. Good looking, cudly, expensive, and incredibly unnerving at times. And they do whatever they want regardless of what YOU want. iPads don't poop and you can chose your cat's colour, but that's about the only difference. Even the only discernible function is the same: lap warmer.
Who cares about enlightening an Anonymous Coward?
"I still however wonder about all the poeple who are buying and bought tablets. What are they really using this for?"
Best cinema for the bed. Netflix is great. You can try and do it with a netbook but the keyboard smashes your chin.
Using my iPad
Sitting on a train writing this
A title is required
"I still however wonder about all the poeple who are buying and bought tablets. What are they really using this for?"
I can't speak for the great unwashed, but my girlfriend just got her doctorate in biophysics and is doing a postdoc in brain mapping and modeling. She uses her iPad to take data and to read scientific journals and texts--something that devices such as the Kindle are subpar at, because (or so she tells me) a lot of the material she needs to read contains color-coded information like charts and graphs that are virtually unreadable on a B&W screen. Apparently, from what she tells me, they're fantastically popular among grad students and postdocs in hard sciences.
And yes, she has a netbook (running Linux) as well. The iPad is easier to use in the lab, or so she says.
Me? I don't have an iPad *or* a netbook, so I can't tell you from personal experience.
Using my Nokia 5800
Sitting on the khazi writing this.
to even post a non reply to my probing question.