Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iPad 2 not really thinner

srexy said:
You've got it reversed because you're saying they're marketing a "damn good visual illusion" and that "everyone is giddy over it". The visual illusion (which you yourself acknowledge) is that it looks thicker (which it isn't) not the reverse.



If you had titled your post "Is it just me or does the iPad 2 look thicker than before?" - or something of that nature - nobody would be taking the p1ss.
Click to expand...


So we're not allowed to state opinions anymore? My opinion is that it looks thicker when seen from a majority of angles (I feel like a broken record). I'm not asking you to agree with me.

About the visual illusion, there's a reason why they specifically marketed it as 33% thinner and not 4.6mm thinner. It makes it sound much more dramatic than it "visually" is (which again, it isn't really when seen from the back and sides).
 
vincenz said:
So we're not allowed to state opinions anymore? My opinion is that it looks thicker when seen from a majority of angles (I feel like a broken record). I'm not asking you to agree with me.

About the visual illusion, there's a reason why they specifically marketed it as 33% thinner and not 4.6mm thinner. It makes it sound much more dramatic than it "visually" is (which it again isn't really when seen from the back and sides).
Click to expand...

Just Sayin'...

4.jpg


Ams.
 
vincenz said:
About the visual illusion, there's a reason why they specifically marketed it as 33% thinner and not 4.6mm thinner. It makes it sound much more dramatic than it "visually" is (which again, it isn't really when seen from the back and sides).
Click to expand...

That's not a visual illusion, it's a verbal illusion -- SAYING something is 33% thinner makes it sound more dramatic than just saying it's 4.6 mm thinner. And it's totally unrelated to the visual illusion you pointed out that makes the iPad 2 look thicker than iPad 1 from certian angles. That's a function of the slope of the curves on the back, and isn't really related to how much thinner the iPad 2 is compared to iPad 1.
 
And OP, speaking of distortion and illusion, congratulations on that thread title.
 

Attachments

  • thin.png
    thin.png
    227 KB · Views: 76
I think with the cover, they are probably very close to each other.

I don't care much for how think the thing is since it's a lot thinner than most laptops/sub-notebooks.

From the face of it, I like the idea of the cover.

Apple seems to have put a lot of thought into it. However, it could turn out to be a dog like the dalmation iMacs or the Cube, but then again it could end up being a great idea like iPod/iTunes store.

Only time will tell.

Anyway, I can't wait to see iPad 2, but the cover is what interests me most. Is it heavy, or flimsy, too stiff, too soft, easy to get dirty, prone to slipping off easily, etc.? :)
 
Ipad 3 is going to look HUGE

This thread is Tony the Tiger GGGRRREEEAAATTT ! ! !
 
Night Spring said:
That's not a visual illusion, it's a verbal illusion -- SAYING something is 33% thinner makes it sound more dramatic than just saying it's 4.6 mm thinner. And it's totally unrelated to the visual illusion you pointed out that makes the iPad 2 look thicker than iPad 1 from certian angles. That's a function of the slope of the curves on the back, and isn't really related to how much thinner the iPad 2 is compared to iPad 1.
Click to expand...

I didn't even know "verbal illusions" were possible :confused:

The position of the tapering on the back pretty much defines how thin both iPads look. The more dramatic tapering on the first one makes it look thinner is all. The flat back on the 2 messes with the tapering. If it tapered all the way to the center, then it seem twice as thin as the original one, but it doesn't.

Not like this is going to destroy sales, but it's still a case in point for those who are more "particular" about how they want their $500+ purchase to look.
 
Actually Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principal shows that while it is highly improbable that an object which is 0.5" in thickness could be thinner than an object which is 0.34" in thickness it is possible.

Remember Delta x times Delta p is greater than or equal to h/2
 
Am I the only one who is confused by the OP?

Urrrmm... Its thinner in every sense of the word...

Your comparing the thickness of the edge on the 1st gen with the entire thickness of the 2nd gen.

In your original picture with the white lines comparing, it needs to go from the very top of each ipad to the floor (where the shadow is).
 
If Steve says it's thinner it MUST be thinner. How dare you question it???? :) :)
 
vincenz said:
So we're not allowed to state opinions anymore? My opinion is that it looks thicker when seen from a majority of angles (I feel like a broken record). I'm not asking you to agree with me.

About the visual illusion, there's a reason why they specifically marketed it as 33% thinner and not 4.6mm thinner. It makes it sound much more dramatic than it "visually" is (which again, it isn't really when seen from the back and sides).
Click to expand...

doublefacepalm.jpg
 
this may well be the most entertaining thread ever...

Certainly the stupidity to signal ratio is amazing. It started off with a thread title that is physically mind boggling, and it really hasn't let up since. I think the high point is the images that clearly show, from several angels, that the entire post is insane.

It is like watching Armageddon, but without the sloppy special effects.

I think this thread needs a special award.
 
ok.. the dimensions are thinner. it looks thinner.. i do not agree with you at all. just clarifying, 8.8 mm is definitely thinner than the original ipad... ok???? there's no visual illusion... maybe you're just crazy.
 
The OP has a point. The iPhone 3G and 3GS were actually slightly thicker than the original iPhone, but they appeared thinner because the back was more tapered. The same principle makes the MacBook Air (especially the original) appear even thinner than it really is.

The new iPad is significantly thinner and I think it will be obvious when you hold it and when it's side by side with the old one.

iPad 2 is 33% thinner at its thickest point as compared to the thickest point of iPad, BUT iPad 2 is not tapered. If you were to measure the actually volume of the two casings the difference would be significantly less than 33%.
 
macboy4 said:
The OP has a point. The iPhone 3G and 3GS were actually slightly thicker than the original iPhone, but they appeared thinner because the back was more tapered..
Click to expand...

I always felt the 3G felt and looked fatter than original iPhone
 
srexy said:
pic
Click to expand...

shen said:
this may well be the most entertaining thread ever...

Certainly the stupidity to signal ratio is amazing. It started off with a thread title that is physically mind boggling, and it really hasn't let up since. I think the high point is the images that clearly show, from several angels, that the entire post is insane.

It is like watching Armageddon, but without the sloppy special effects.

I think this thread needs a special award.
Click to expand...

3goldens said:
are you high?
Click to expand...

daleycss said:
ok.. the dimensions are thinner. it looks thinner.. i do not agree with you at all. just clarifying, 8.8 mm is definitely thinner than the original ipad... ok???? there's no visual illusion... maybe you're just crazy.
Click to expand...

afd said:
I think OP is suffering from Post PC Device Anorexia by Proxy...
Click to expand...

And out come the hyenas :D


macboy4 said:
The OP has a point. The iPhone 3G and 3GS were actually slightly thicker than the original iPhone, but they appeared thinner because the back was more tapered. The same principle makes the MacBook Air (especially the original) appear even thinner than it really is.

The new iPad is significantly thinner and I think it will be obvious when you hold it and when it's side by side with the old one.

iPad 2 is 33% thinner at its thickest point as compared to the thickest point of iPad, BUT iPad 2 is not tapered. If you were to measure the actually volume of the two casings the difference would be significantly less than 33%.
Click to expand...

Exactly. That was another perfect example of Apple using the same technique. Now if only the others would be quiet and let in people with more constructive things to say. :rolleyes:
 
mac jones said:
Ha Ha They fooled everyone....;)

It's not really faster either. They just use a different measuring tool.

The same tool they use to measure the thickness.

They will also, tell you your wallet isn't thinner after March 11th.

As, a matter of fact it only really look really thin next to Steve.....

No seriously, your argument is thin
Click to expand...

I have to admit, your comment made me laugh.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back