It's just an Ipad true
But I bet you wish you'd bought Apple shares a couple of years ago....
So the new iPad is out tomorrow (indeed today if you live near the Date Line) and all the world's media is aflame with non-stop fondleslab coverage. So many reviews and analyses of the world-shaking new information portaportal have been published that many top media outlets are now issuing roundups of the reviews, seeking to …
But I bet you wish you'd bought Apple shares a couple of years ago....
iDID! Now iGLOAT!
Yes and mine will arrive on at the beginning of April.
As a newbie to Apple I'm glad I waited for the new one.
But what will you be saying next March about the iPad 4?
Apples version cycle is no better or worse than the android manufacturers.
Personally, I'm waiting to hear whether the rumors are true - that the a5x is faster than T3.
I think you missed the point being made.
I'm pretty sure the Roundup² is working perfectly.
The problem with 'wow factor', is that it wears off. You either get bored quickly with the ipad, or love it to bits and unknowingly become a slave to technology.
"or love it to bits and unknowingly become a slave to technology."
^ not really about the ipad, could be said of any smart device.
Notably, had a frothy article I read recently about 'How Apple managed to get so many pixels into that screen'
As if they literally manufacture them themselves with elves in Cupertino. Was such a terrible fawning piece of 'journalism' that I now ignore Mashable articles in case that baseline for accuracy is across the board.
Yep, it's just a V2 tablet with a new screen and support chip unless you're American and have the 4G thing then you got that too.
Pint, cos they're frothy, too.
I can't believe you were downvoted for that.
Apple assemble parts, they do not manufacture it and do not pay the R&D for it. They buy what's on the market, and the screen sold as Retina can be found (or will be) on other products under another name.
True, but they do have the purchasing oomph (due to volume) to be able to buy those parts for less, which makes it hard for the competition to compete on price for a similar spec and still make any profit. Hence you either get cheaper but not as good or similar but more expensive.
Does make them a tough act to compete with.
If that's true, why do Apple products cost more than competitors similarly specced products?
I can't believe you were downvoted for that.
I can, and i'm not supprised either, to misquote William Congreve
Heaven has no rage like love to hatred turned
Nor hell a fury like a
woman fanboi (or their bright new shiney) scorned.
"If that's true, why do Apple products cost more than competitors similarly specced products?"
you forgot the added i(diot)Tax
Shame there isn't any really, other wise Apple wouldn't have been able to get away with being so lazy.
Apple hasn't been lazy; this year's model has four times the pixels, twice the processing, etc, etc of last year's model. That's not below the progress rate seen across the industry as a whole.
The article's right though; it's just an iPad. This does not change the world.
"Shame there isn't any really" I think that perhaps you need to come out from under your cosy iRock.. In what way is the Transformer Prime, to name but one, NOT Competition? to be honest I think its actually better, both pad and netbook. Ideal for working on or watching films, on long flights...
Now all we need is for some of this screen technology to make its way into Laptops.
Frankly, I'm rather hacked off with this fad for 'widescreen' everything AND where most laptops (even up to 16in screens) have cheapo 768 or 900 vertical pixels.
My ancient (10yr old) Inspiron 9600 had a 1600x1200 screen. The past 10 years as really done very little in improving screen resolution.
Paris because she always wants to be seen a clearly as possible.
The problem with laptops is not the tech, but rather WINDOWS and badly designed programs.
A high resolution screen will mean:
A) tiny letters & menus
B) Mangled UI if you change the appearance.
Lazy?Yeah, I suppose so. After all, all they've changed is the touchscreen, the CPU, the GPU, the camera, the cellular modem and the battery. Imagine what else they could have changed if they hadn't been so lazy eh?
All in a 'what have the Romans ever done for us' voice, of course.
I think the AC meant that if there had been any credible challenges then just how much better would the iPad would be?
Where's the iPad killer? There isn't one. Apple can afford to be lazy - and they not being.
Good work by engineers at Sharp, LG and Samsung creating high definition screens at a reasonable manufacturing cost.
Now lets see some movement on laptops and monitors please, resolutions barely changed in 5 years, 768 pixels on 15" screen for goodness sake is this 1995?
Good for Apple for buying enough panels to boost the display industry.
"It's just an iPad, FFS "
So the Reg isn't looking to get back into Apples good books any time soon?... :D
The Jobsian/Cooksian Church's exit door is a one-way ticket :o)
Bitterness is such an unattractive trait :-P
I think it's still 'Jobsian'. After all, the Christians didn't change their name just because their leader had the temerity to do one from this mortal plane. Even when some other prize nobwands started preaching 'The Word' - I'm sure Jobsists would feel the same way.
I can see why there'd be some confusion though. Especially when everyone else tends to refer to them as 'arseholes'.
Sad people buying some social status, it's tragic.
The Transformer Prime is way better. "Retina" screen or not.
Don't buy what everyone else tells you to buy! Buy what everyone else [on El Reg] tells you to buy!
if you ask me the TP has some problems too.. (gps lock,wifi etc) I think the original Transformer was the best. But I would be biased as an owner of one. I'm not looking back.
A Transformer Prime, with the iPad 3 display?
no! I like the widescreen much better for films on flights.. and 50% of the time I'm using the TF with keyboard so its not so close to my face to notice the resolution, that only becomes noticeable in pad mode.
And as we now know, that super-duper-Oakland-Raider-helmet-wearing screen that everyone is so excited about eats battery life like there is no tomorrow. So yes...faster, better innards, orgasm-inducing screen...and it still just performs exactly like it's predecessors.
Thanks, I'm loving the almost 12-hours I get on my original Transformer with keyboard dock.
Yeah- they had to cram a pretty remarkable battery into the new iPad to hold the line at 10 hours. But they managed it. I'll take 10 hours without an add-on battery over 12 with (the admittedly handy) keyboard dock.
Forgive me for asking, but exactly how much do you think people care whether a tablet runs for 10 or 12 hours? The iPad manages the former without a kludgy external battery nailed into a keyboard. (To be fair, the latest Transformer models can do 12 hours without the dock, but you don't claim to have one of those.)
Unless you really do spend more than 10 hours doing nothing but working on your tablet all day, every day, without respite, meal breaks, etc., it is a bit of a stretch to claim that 12 hours' life is any more useful than 10. You're likely to be charging it up every day regardless.
The chargers for these devices aren't exactly big and heavy either—most will easily fit into a jacket pocket—and most will also charge your smartphone too. (The iPad's charger will also charge my iPhone 4, so no need to carry two chargers around. Ditto for most devices that sit in the Android camp: most of them all use micro-USB sockets for charging, although there are some exceptions.)
And, yes, that screen really does make a difference. The more pixels you have, the less power you need to piss up the wall dealing with the various cheats and kludges needed to render text properly. No need to go mad with anti-aliasing, for example, when the resolution is too high to see aliasing in the first place.
Battery life for any tablet is very important.
When I was feeling a bit mosey the other day, I was able to use my TFP all day without being tethered to a mains socket.
12 hours is a 20% increase over 10 hours, which is significant.
Didn't Apple say it had to be over 300ppi to be a retina screen when the iPhone4 came out?
Anyway, serious question from someone who would like to know: How much difference does the resolution make when viewing HD1080 output? Surely there is a mismatch on every other pixel? I'm asking as lots of reviewers cite the quality when watching films as a particular strength of the screen.
They said the pixels have to be small enough that a person with normal eyesight can't tell them apart at the distance they normally hold the device. Then they said that's 300ppi on a phone. At the iPad launch they sort of argued that, you know, people tend to hold tablets further away, so the density can be less while still fitting their definition of retina, etc.
I'm not sure I buy that since I seem to hold both phones and tablets at approximately arm's length and in any case if I play, say, a polygon-based game without antialiasing at the full screen resolution on my 4s I can make out the aliased edges. And I've had routine eye tests so I know that I'm average and not some sort of super human.
In theory if the pixels actually were too small to see it wouldn't matter exactly how source content maps to them — aliasing errors would be present but invisibly small, just as how magazines have been able to print TV snaps for years without someone doing arithmetic on exactly what size the picture needs to be to come out well when the printers are done. In this case I would expect that errors will be visible to the keen sighted but basically not a major problem.
For starters the iPad is the wrong shape for watching films, if you want a tablet that is good for movies you need to look elsewhere.
You mean it's not 16:9? Or 2.35:1? So you have black bars - as opposed to the view of your knees you'd have with a tablet with that form factor? The screen, even once the bars are taken into account, is better than 1080p - it's 2,048 x 1,536. 75% of 1,536 is 1,152, so your 16:9 move will be displayed on 2,048 x 1,152 pixels. Remind me why you are disappointed by this, again?
> I seem to hold both phones and tablets at approximately arm's length
Would that be a normal bent "arm's length" (~12") or a straight "arm's length" (~24")?
12" makes quite a difference to the "retina-ness" of a display...
(Plus, you must look a bit of a knob walking round using a phone at a straight "arm's length"...)
Please add this one to your sites summarised: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/15/ipad_review_roundup_roundup/
...then so am I
...then so I am.
No, I don't have one and won't be ordering one. It is an ipad and does the same as the last one, which I also don't have.
But hopefully, it will push laptop makers to provide something other than rubbish screens. That would be a good thing and allow us all to say "Thank-you Apple."
They also missed a trick, thunderbolt sync, disk and display would have been very, very cool. I guess they only do one upgrade per version, though.
I hope that the laptop makers (Asus?) soon realise that putting and ARM CPU and battery on the back of a hi-res detachable laptop touchscreen is a good idea.
You can bet they already have - I suspect they're holding off until windows runs on ARM; while LINUX probably works fine, they know their target audience want windows.
Trouble with the target market wanting Windows is that Windows 8 on ARM still won't help - the people who can't cope with finding new software for Linux/Android are generally the same people who don't want to re-buy Office - and Office 2007 ain't gonna run on ARM.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2017