Last edited by a moderator:
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.
iPad 2 not really thinner
- Thread starter vincenz
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You're misrepresenting my point. You're saying that I'm saying the iPad 2 isn't physically thinner again.
I'm saying the tapering on the iPad does a very good job at hiding its width, whereas it's not so apparent on the iPad 2. Unless you're Shaq, you're not going to be able to hold the original iPad by its front and rear center with 2 fingers, and will therefore never know its true width during everyday use.
The flatness on the front and back of the iPad 2 isn't so good at this.
I think the OP may actually have a learning disability if he can't do the math and find that 8.8 mm is less than 13.4, regardless of the shape and how large the lines are in MS Paint.
At first I was upset, but now I feel bad.
At first I was upset, but now I feel bad.
But again, my point is that you don't need to even come close to gripping it like you are suggesting to actually feel that the 1st gen is thicker than the iPad 2.
The flat back on the iPad 2 does tell you exactly the maximum thickness that is true, but even on the iPhone 4 which has a flat back and a flat edge, it feels thinner than the previous iPhone 3GS which had a curved back with no edges. Same with the iPod Touches you keep referencing.
Flat back or not, it will feel thinner. You just don't get it. The only thing you have succeeded at is proving that Apple's "33% thinner" claim isn't really true when talking about the grip, and that it is more like "20% thinner" when you consider the grip factor.
flat back=looks thicker. Good job, you can look at pictures. now learn to look at the side by sides, not just on apple's site, but on engadget http://www.engadget.com/photos/apple-ipad-2-hands-on/#3938711
Plus it's a 2d image and you can't actually perceive depth without 3d like in real life, which is precisely why you have to look at it from a side angle to actually see what it looks like. It's really stupid to even look at it on the internet and go "yep, it looks thicker to me." You really have to compare it in person and give it a full comparison.
I still think you don't understand the effect tapering has on the user. It literally deceives you into thinking it's thinner than it is. The original iPad does this very well since it tapers all the way to the center back.
And I don't know where you're getting your iPod touches from because that's not the experience I get when I hold them.
I started off by saying the iPad 2 LOOKS/SEEMS thicker than the iPad. I never said anything about the grip making it "more like 20% thinner." I don't know where you're getting that from.
Perhaps the issue is with your thread title which say that the iPad 2 is not really thinner.
Dude I give up, you fail to understand some simple facts:
Yes, the 1st gen iPad tapering does deceive you to thinking it is thinner. However even with this deception, it will still feel thicker when compared to the iPad 2, as shown by the image I created and explained how even a "small" grip on the 1st gen iPad equals a thicker grip than it would be on the iPad 2.
You keep bringing up the iPod touches despite the fact that myself and others disagree with you about it feeling thicker. You just keep clinging to your flawed logic despite being shown proof of your error.
So go ahead, think what you want, but your attempt at proving illusion vs reality has completely fallen flat.
Not just that, but he contradicted himself by saying the thinness was an optical illusion (what?) and people believed the thinness because of Apple's marketing (what??) That first posting had so much error and contradiction that it messed up with so many people's brains here.
But really all OP wanted to say was:
"It doesn't matter if it's physically real or not, if Apple claims something and people believe it, it must be false because people believe it only because of Apple's marketing." (Yes, I know logically that doesn't make sense)
This whole thread is idiotic. I'm a graphic designer and I'm confident that iPad 2 will both look and feel thinner. The comparison of the width of the flat edge to the curved edge is utterly meaningless.
Well I believe what I see, and what I see in Scott Forstall's hands in 2011 is thicker compared to 2010. There have been many other pictures showing this. I mean unless you want to delude yourself into thinking that, then I'm not going to stop you.
And about the "flawed logic," that could easily be said for you, but then we wouldn't be going anywhere, would we?
I never made a crack about Apple's marketing. I said it was brilliant. You know that 33% is there for a reason.
I would like you to show me postings where I contradicted myself. I still haven't seen an example of it. From the beginning, I've said that it doesn't look thinner at all.
Title:iPad 2 not really thinner
Why is everyone so excited about the iPad 2 being 8.8 mm?
...
in real world use, it will LOOK thicker than the original iPad.
...
It's a visual illusion and a damn good one, that coupled with equally brilliant marketing, has everyone giddy over it. In reality it'll actually look thicker.
If you don't see the problem with your writing there, I give up.
In your thread title you said the 2 isn't really thinner. It doesn't say that the 2 doesn't look thinner. But I understand what you are saying.
The 1's taper does a better job of hiding the overall thickness of the device because from regular angles, like viewing it resting on a table, you only see the sides, which are actually a little bit thinner; however, to closer you get to looking at the 2 straight on the thinner it looks. So looking at the photo above, you see the entire thickness of the 2, but only see the thinner side of the 1. Even though you know the device has more thickness, because it can't levitate, you don't notice it. Also, most normal people aren't holding it at the thickest point so the 1 feels thinner in you hands than it actually is.
To me in that image the tapered edge on the iPad 2 does a pretty good job hiding the thickness too. Also that image was taken with a camera, the human eye does a better job of seeing smaller details like that.
Our brains can work out much more with a 3d image than a 2d image. Also we can see a dynamic range of shadow detail and cameras only have a static range (defined by exposure). If we were looking at a video of that image though where it went around in a full 360 view of what the thickness comparison looked like, that "illusion" of thinness would be completely lost on the 1st gen iPad.
Again, photographic evidence of thickness != real evidence. You have to hold it in your hands, and really see it for yourself.
Here is an example where the iPad 2 does a better job hiding it's thickness than the 1st gen, again it's all about angles and our ability to perceive thickness with a 2d image:
That image has such a shallow depth of field that it hides most of the details. The human eye would never do that.
Where's the problem? It says the iPad 2 doesn't look thinner.
It being 8.8mm (4.6mm physically thinner than the original) doesn't contradict at all my saying that it doesn't LOOK thinner.
Again, please point out where the contradiction is. I'm able to read and I don't see it.
In your thread title you said the 2 isn't really thinner. It doesn't say that the 2 doesn't look thinner. But I understand what you are saying.
The 1's taper does a better job of hiding the overall thickness of the device because from regular angles, like viewing it resting on a table, you only see the sides, which are actually a little bit thinner; however, to closer you get to looking at the 2 straight on the thinner it looks. So looking at the photo above, you see the entire thickness of the 2, but only see the thinner side of the 1. Even though you know the device has more thickness, because it can't levitate, you don't notice it. Also, most normal people aren't holding it at the thickest point so the 1 feels thinner in you hands than it actually is.
Yes, this is what I keep getting at, but no one seems to get it! It's not a matter of words because I've stated everything very explicitly. That's why I keep saying the dramatic tapering in the first iPad will translate into a thinner feel and look. Even though you know for a fact that the iPad is 4.6mm thicker than its successor, the tapering will tell your brain and your senses something else. What you don't notice is very powerful.
But no one will care or notice all that much because in their heads will be the fact that iPad 2 is the newer one, and therefore better in all respects (faster, smarter, lighter, and dare I say...thinner?).
Contradiction or not the iPad2 will look thinner the closer you are to viewing it face on, but it will not look noticeably thinner if you look at it close to horizontal.
Use the Macbook Air as an example of this because the edges are similarly thin. If you look at the side of the Air you see the entire thickness, but if the closer to looking straight at the closed lid the thinner it looks.
In the end the 2 is thinner than the 1, but how much thinner depends on how you view it. Most usage cases of it being in your hands will make it look thinner.
I did this several times already, but you don't understand me.
Your thread title says: iPad2 not REALLY thinner.
In your OP, and throughout this thread, you've been saying that iPad DOES NOT LOOK thinner.
REALLY != DOES NOT LOOK
In fact, they are pretty much opposite in meaning.
The sentence "iPad 2 not really thinner" means that iPad 2 looks thinner but is in fact thicker.
Do you see the problem now?
You're STILL arguing over semantics. This is what I've been trying to avoid from the first page where I first stated this. The whole thread is not about the title, but you keep making it out to be again and again.
I've said that the title is my opinion. If you decide to read it to mean that the iPad 2 is not physically thinner, then you need to check your reading comprehension because that's not what I've been saying.
Also, it's presumptuous to say that there is one and ONLY one way to read a sentence.
I didn't want to go this far, but let me give it an old college try by dissecting your first post.
Ok, so you're wondering people are excited by the new thinness. And in the next sentence, you'll introduce your reason why the new thinness isn't that big of a deal.
In this sentence, you're 1) recognizing that the new thinness is surprising and physically true 2) claiming that it'll look thicker than the original ipad. In the next sentence you'll try to back up your claim 2 with evidence.
So far your claim is:
- iPad 2 is physically thinner than iPad 1
- However from the back it'll look thicker based on photos I've seen
- Thus the thinness is not significant in real usage
- Thus I don't understand excitement
No problem here so far. I personally disagree but it's your proposition and so far so good.
This is where the whole thing falls apart. Your argument in this paragraph is:
- There's a "damn good" visual illusion. (note: visual illusion = look that deceives or contradicts the physical reality)
- Apple's doing a brilliant marketing job to make people either believe it's thinner or the thinness is significant (not sure what's your intention here)
- The visual illusion and brilliant marketing are making people giddy
However, the "visual illusion" isn't an "illusion" because it IS thinner. "brilliant marketing" is also meaningless because that implies Apple is doing something to spin it away from "reality," which isn't the case here.
Thus your argument if you include the last paragraph.
1) iPad 2 is physically thinner than iPad 1
2) However from the back it'll look thicker based on photos I've seen
3) Thus the thinness is not significant in real usage
4) There is visual illusion that makes people believe it's really thinner
5) Apple also doing a spin job with its marketing to make people believe it's really thinner or significant
6) Thus I don't understand excitement and I believe people are excited because of 4) and 5)
#4 either directly contradicts or has nothing to do with your point of #1-3. The only thing consistent is whatever Apple does regarding the new thinness isn't that important or isn't real.
What you SHOULD've written in the last paragraph is something like this:
"Thus because of a visual illusion that makes it look thicker than it really is, in real usage the benefit of thinness is questionable. I believe the main reason people are giddy is they do not understand this visual impact and Apple is doing the best marketing job to make people think the thinness matters."
Ok, so you're wondering people are excited by the new thinness. And in the next sentence, you'll introduce your reason why the new thinness isn't that big of a deal.
In this sentence, you're 1) recognizing that the new thinness is surprising and physically true 2) claiming that it'll look thicker than the original ipad. In the next sentence you'll try to back up your claim 2 with evidence.
So far your claim is:
- iPad 2 is physically thinner than iPad 1
- However from the back it'll look thicker based on photos I've seen
- Thus the thinness is not significant in real usage
- Thus I don't understand excitement
No problem here so far. I personally disagree but it's your proposition and so far so good.
It's a visual illusion and a damn good one, that coupled with equally brilliant marketing, has everyone giddy over it. In reality it'll actually look thicker.
This is where the whole thing falls apart. Your argument in this paragraph is:
- There's a "damn good" visual illusion. (note: visual illusion = look that deceives or contradicts the physical reality)
- Apple's doing a brilliant marketing job to make people either believe it's thinner or the thinness is significant (not sure what's your intention here)
- The visual illusion and brilliant marketing are making people giddy
However, the "visual illusion" isn't an "illusion" because it IS thinner. "brilliant marketing" is also meaningless because that implies Apple is doing something to spin it away from "reality," which isn't the case here.
Thus your argument if you include the last paragraph.
1) iPad 2 is physically thinner than iPad 1
2) However from the back it'll look thicker based on photos I've seen
3) Thus the thinness is not significant in real usage
4) There is visual illusion that makes people believe it's really thinner
5) Apple also doing a spin job with its marketing to make people believe it's really thinner or significant
6) Thus I don't understand excitement and I believe people are excited because of 4) and 5)
#4 either directly contradicts or has nothing to do with your point of #1-3. The only thing consistent is whatever Apple does regarding the new thinness isn't that important or isn't real.
What you SHOULD've written in the last paragraph is something like this:
"Thus because of a visual illusion that makes it look thicker than it really is, in real usage the benefit of thinness is questionable. I believe the main reason people are giddy is they do not understand this visual impact and Apple is doing the best marketing job to make people think the thinness matters."
Last edited: