Faster processor is also using extra power. So don't blame it all on retina display.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
5 reasons why the new iPad is a game changer
- Thread starter jp700p
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Faster processor is also using extra power. So don't blame it all on retina display.
By the time they could make that, incremental advances in Apple's devices would dull you to how significant it is. It's not like they're going to make what you describe as the next iPad after the current one.
Maybe you should go back and visit the tech sites (including this one) and read the responses to the iPod launch.
True, but what about the WiFi only model? It surely can't just because of the Retina Display. Maybe the quad-core graphics chip is more power hungry as well.
I totally agree.
I'm really not sure who is going to buy the iPad 2 now except maybe schools in bulk. Who has the $400 to buy an iPad 2 (which is a somewhat luxury and discretionary product), but doesn't have the extra $100 to go up to the new iPad? And of those few people for whom the extra $100 is just a bridge too far, won't a lot of them choose to save $200 and buy the Kindle Fire?
This will be interesting to see.
Wrong.
Because Joe Six Pack doesn't see the value of a retina display doesn't mean that other people don't.
Spoke to a Doctor that wants higher resolution for X-Ray and MRI. They're often looking for things the size of a grain of rice. Higher resolution is a big deal.
Audio analysis...same thing.. You need to see the spikes representing amplitude and modify them. Sharper waveforms are always better.
None of us gets to assign game changer status for anyone else but ourselves.
I can sort of see your point, but the concept of "game changing" by its very nature deals with larger groups, trends, and movements. Individual use and subjective response isn't a part of it. Otherwise, every android, windows, etc, phone could be called a game changer--I'm sure there will be someone for whom the form factor and OS are especially useable. At which point, the entire concept is watered down to uselessness.
The retina screen is most likely amazing, true. And, judging purely by specs, even the similarly high resolution offerings by competing companies (none of which are, to my knowledge, on the market yet) are lower (in the 1920x1080 range). So, when these products are released, they'll already be behind--at least in that category.
Does that make the new iPad a game changer? Dunno. But it will force companies to UP their game to continue competing. And hooray for that.
Competition is good, m'kay?
-->iDv.
you're forgetting the fact that Apple doesn't want competition, they want to be the only player in the game.
I wouldn't call the difference between the iPad 2 screen at 1024x768 and the Tab 10.1 at 1280x800 a huge difference where Apple or anyone else felt like they needed to play catch up. If you deliver the first viable tablet to the market it makes it pretty easy for competitors to incrementally one up the specs.
Now 2048x1536 resolution IS A GAME CHANGER. No one is even close and they won't be for awhile.
Aslo, it will be much harder for developers of Android tablets to release Apps that scale to higher resolution displays because of the hodgepodge of different resolutions what will undoubtedly hit the market.
It is all in the display actually, or close enough to it that mentioning other components is pointless. The 10 hour battery life is not the rated life for 3D gaming, its just the rated time for when the ipad is on and the CPU/GPU are mostly idle.
If you compare 3D gaming time or other CPU/GPU intensive tasks, then you have a point.
As does Samsung, and Google, and Microsoft, and every other company bringing a product to the masses. I'm not forgetting anything. Competition is good for the consumer--who cares what Apple (Samsung, Google, Microsoft) wants.
Personally, I *want* an Apple that has to fight for top position. Right now--at least in the tablet market--it doesn't really have to do so. Not enough for my tastes, anyway.
Still, I'm excited to see that Retina display in person. It'll be my first iPad.
-->iDv.
If this doesn't put the final coffin nail in the full-sized Android tablet market, it certainly comes close.
I think its pretty clear that the low-end of the tablet market has been pretty well staked out by Amazon and B&N. Basically selling $200 devices, at or below cost, subsidized by the eventual sale of books and other electronic media. Well and good for those companies, and good for those consumers who want to experiment with the tablet interface. But where does that leave the Samsungs and Asus of the world? They don't have the luxury of selling devices under cost.
The price-point gap between $200 and the iPad's $500 entry-point is now well-stocked with devices that will continue to grow the Apple eco-system: Not just the $400 iPad2, which apparently is going to stay in production (a surprise to me) - but also by the millions of pre-owned iPads that are now entering the secondary market. Why would anyone buy a $350 Asus, that can do little more than browse the web and watch the odd movie, when they can get a gently-used iPad, with access to 200,000 odd iPad apps, for the same - or less - money?
On the high end, there seems to be nothing left to go after. Apple's screen, camera, and other features, combined with that game-winning App Store catalog, simply leaves assorted cranks and misfits as your only customers. People with a psychological hatred of Apple (and you know who you are..) There's no doubt they exist. But not in big enough numbers to make it a market worth pursuing.
The one remaining hope for Dell; Samsung; HP; and the rest of the pc-manufacturing industry, is to wait for Windows 8 to ship. And hope that it offers an attractive-enough cross-platform capability to lure Windows desktop and laptop users to choose the Windows Tablet as their "second screen." But even if that happens, they simply aren't going to have the price advantage that PC-clone makers did in the early 1980s, when Apple was building Macintoshes and Apple IIs in expensive domestic factories. These days Apple is the low-cost high-value producer. At best Samsung, Acer, HP, and the rest will be able to meet Apple's prices. But to win customers, they'll actually have to compete on useful features. (Hint: This doesn't mean barometers and folding keyboards.)
I think its pretty clear that the low-end of the tablet market has been pretty well staked out by Amazon and B&N. Basically selling $200 devices, at or below cost, subsidized by the eventual sale of books and other electronic media. Well and good for those companies, and good for those consumers who want to experiment with the tablet interface. But where does that leave the Samsungs and Asus of the world? They don't have the luxury of selling devices under cost.
The price-point gap between $200 and the iPad's $500 entry-point is now well-stocked with devices that will continue to grow the Apple eco-system: Not just the $400 iPad2, which apparently is going to stay in production (a surprise to me) - but also by the millions of pre-owned iPads that are now entering the secondary market. Why would anyone buy a $350 Asus, that can do little more than browse the web and watch the odd movie, when they can get a gently-used iPad, with access to 200,000 odd iPad apps, for the same - or less - money?
On the high end, there seems to be nothing left to go after. Apple's screen, camera, and other features, combined with that game-winning App Store catalog, simply leaves assorted cranks and misfits as your only customers. People with a psychological hatred of Apple (and you know who you are..) There's no doubt they exist. But not in big enough numbers to make it a market worth pursuing.
The one remaining hope for Dell; Samsung; HP; and the rest of the pc-manufacturing industry, is to wait for Windows 8 to ship. And hope that it offers an attractive-enough cross-platform capability to lure Windows desktop and laptop users to choose the Windows Tablet as their "second screen." But even if that happens, they simply aren't going to have the price advantage that PC-clone makers did in the early 1980s, when Apple was building Macintoshes and Apple IIs in expensive domestic factories. These days Apple is the low-cost high-value producer. At best Samsung, Acer, HP, and the rest will be able to meet Apple's prices. But to win customers, they'll actually have to compete on useful features. (Hint: This doesn't mean barometers and folding keyboards.)
That word gets thrown around too much around here. It's almost as common as "lol." It's a pitiful, poor upgrade.
Who's fault is that? Right now there really is NO competition. Even before the New iPad. Now you would have to be crazy to buy any other tablet except maybe a Kindle Fire because that's not even in the same category.
IMO, Apple seems to release products that they think will make Apple users happy and don't even give one single thought to what Samsung are doing. That is what I *WANT*. Apple is MUCH better at developing products all by themselves. They don't need to keep one eye on the completely uninnovative likes of Samsung and Microsoft.
I agree assuming you mean 'overstate'. It is difficult to overstate the importance of the Retina display - that is to say, it is very hard to exaggerate how significant it is.
The new iPad is definitely a solid upgrade, but I don't think based on retina alone (the only major new feature in the tablet market) it's a game changer.
Come one. It's a decent upgrade in terms of the usual Apple upgrades (especially compared to last year's almost embarrasing upgrades for both the iPad 2 and the iPhone 4S), but it's not a game changer. LTE has been around for a year. Price points and battery life the SAME? Right -revolutionary. Retina display and quad core graphics are nice certainly and may be forward right now from other tablets, but day to day usage won;t be effected that dramatically.
Gamechanger / revolutionary terminology should re[rsent a completely different approach or feature or way ot doing something. This has none of those things. Apple and Apple fanboys was overuse that terminology for almost everything Apple related.
It's a nice upgrade though - just not a game changer.
Tony
Retina display and quad core graphics are nice certainly and may be forward right now from other tablets, but day to day usage won;t be effected that dramatically.Gamechanger / revolutionary terminology should re[rsent a completely different approach or feature or way ot doing something. This has none of those things. Apple and Apple fanboys was overuse that terminology for almost everything Apple related.
It's a nice upgrade though - just not a game changer.
Tony
Yeah, words like revolutionary and amazing have no meaning anymore when it relates to Apple products. Makes you wonder what words they'll come up with for something that IS revolutionary and amazing.
dang, whoever you sold it to clearly lives under a rock. I have my 64GB 3G posted in about 4 different places for $350 less than I paid and not a bite. The market is soft on these this year.
Well posting an Apple device for sale AFTER an announcement is just silly. You'd be better off hanging on to it for a month or two until the wave of all the people selling their ipad's goes away.
You're on macrumors, you must have known the iPad was coming for months before, why did you hold onto yours for so long?