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

iPad2 = what the iPad1 should have been

Burntfender said:
I recently picked up an iPad 2, and i must say it is a fairly awesome device. I think something that is significantly underrated is the responsiveness and overall stability of the OS, everything is snappy- so much more than my iPhone 4 which struggles to keep up at times.
However, i would have to agree, the cameras are a load of trash. For a device that is being advertised quite heavily as one with video calling capabilities, I would have thought that the quality may have been better- i am a bit disappointed with this. I know being so big and all its primary use has nothing to do with cameras, but if you are going to add in cameras, why not do a more capable job of doing so? The quality is quite atrocious im sorry to say.
Click to expand...

I'm sure if Apple had decided to make the iPad2 thicker say the same as the iPhone 4 (another half mm), they could have put in 3 megapixel or higher cameras.

But I don't think Apple expects people to use the iPad for still photography. I certainly don't. The camera's were for Facetime use primarily, where these cameras do the job well.

Additionally, I'm sure the $499 price tag was a big issue. Lots of money was probably spent conducting studies to find the perfect price point for this sort of product and $499 was it. Adding higher res cameras probably would have pushed the 16GB Wi-Fi model past this price point and cost Apple sales.

In the end, I think Apple made the smart decision. Give people the cameras they asked for, make the iPad thinner and lighter and keep it at the same price point as the original. Lets see if the new Samsung tablets coming out (claiming to be thinner) have high res cameras and a price point starting at $499.
 
Personally, I think the camera in the iPad as adequate for what it's intended for. Very few people expect a device that size to be of practical use as a camera. There's a much bigger argument for making the iPhone camera better since it's always in your pocket and can generally stand in for an average point and shoot whilst out and about.

But seriously, even if the iPad did have a better camera on it, who would feel comfortable pulling it out of a bag (assuming you were walking around with it anyway) and using it to take holiday snaps or whatever? In which case, when exactly would a better camera on the iPad actually get used?

I think a lot of the complaining about the camera is just because it's visibly not great. But it doesn't have to be, which is why it isn't!
 
1. iPad 2 is not what iPad 1 should have been. The processor and price points could not have been matched last year (or you would have had the fabled $999 ipad instead of $499), with the exception of skimping on ram in iPhone 1. Also, Facetime was being set up as the feature enhancement for iPhone 4 - no way they would tip their hand on that with a camera loaded iPad with poor picture quality (smaller pixels and higher resolution on the iPhone can hide a lot of quality issues in a lo-res phone camera).

2. They own the market, so deal with it.

3. What is really needed is total integration between the iPad and iPhone platform. iPad should seemlessly use the 3g/4g connection in your iPhone just as if the radio were integrated. Same goes for the camera - you have a very good quality camera on the iPhone, use it with the iPad. Whether bluetooth or a more reliable and efficient alternative, iPad and iPhone should work as one - the cross-selling opportunity would be enhanced and the efficiency and usefulness would be unbeatable.
 
Mac.World said:
I'm sure if Apple had decided to make the iPad2 thicker say the same as the iPhone 4 (another half mm), they could have put in 3 megapixel or higher cameras.

But I don't think Apple expects people to use the iPad for still photography. I certainly don't. The camera's were for Facetime use primarily, where these cameras do the job well.

Additionally, I'm sure the $499 price tag was a big issue. Lots of money was probably spent conducting studies to find the perfect price point for this sort of product and $499 was it. Adding higher res cameras probably would have pushed the 16GB Wi-Fi model past this price point and cost Apple sales.

In the end, I think Apple made the smart decision. Give people the cameras they asked for, make the iPad thinner and lighter and keep it at the same price point as the original. Lets see if the new Samsung tablets coming out (claiming to be thinner) have high res cameras and a price point starting at $499.
Click to expand...

I know exactly what you mean. The problem i have is that apple is supposed to be a high quality brand. For example, it took them so long to implement multitasking into iOS not because they couldn't have shipped it with iOS 1, but because they wanted to get it perfect. In other words, if it isn't up to a certain standard then why include it?
The front facing camera I can understand is for FaceTime. If the device wasn't intended to take photos and video and such, why include a rear facing camera in the first place?
I wouldnt mind it being a bit thicker if that meant I could take the occasional photo here and there. And I wouldnt mind paying a bit extra either (I live in a country whose currency is worth a bit over the US dollar, yet we pay substantially more than what the import tax would be responsible for, so I'm used to paying more for apple products)
Obviously camera quality doesn't really matter at the end of the day in terms of the devices usage, but it would be nice if it had that ability meeting a certain standard.
 
rmhop81 said:
i guess it just depends on each person. Personally, i wouldn't fork over $500 for any ipad. $299, i'd buy it all day long.
Click to expand...

Personally, I and many other people forked over way more than that for both. I can not speak for anyone else, but I am happy with my purchases. It all depends on your priorities and what you need and can afford.
 
I agree with you.... on most parts.

They could've put cameras on the 1st gen, front and back facing. They also could have put 512 MB of RAM. But i dont think they could have out the a5 chip. At least the a4 constantly stays at 1 GHz whereas the iPad 2 dynamically changes, which could explain the only minor speed increase.

I dont like when people say "Apple did all they could with the iPad 1," clearly they did not.
 
Burntfender said:
And I wouldnt mind paying a bit extra either (I live in a country whose currency is worth a bit over the US dollar, yet we pay substantially more than what the import tax would be responsible for, so I'm used to paying more for apple products).
Click to expand...

LOL. Trust me when I say, you and I pay the same amount for things. I have Pounds in my wallet, not dollars, if that gives you any indication. :D
 
I don't think apple's politic is to release a product with 1 millon features, but one thats simple and usefull. my 2c
 
MaxBurn said:
I'm still impressed with my ipad, skipping ipad2.
Click to expand...

I actually skipped the iPad, and made the iPad 2 my first iPad. After owning the iPad 2, I am thinking about picking up an iPad 1 for the kids/wife as they are always trying to pry mine out of my hands. I should never have purchased Lego: Harry Potter.
 
walkie said:
Ok, I own an iPad 1 and last saturday I went to the store and played with an iPad2, I realised that iPad2 is a little bit more faster than iPad1, a bit lighter, a bit thinner, that's ok, but come on! both cameras are rubish!!!, the photos and video quality is the worst I ever seen on a current portable device, but now I'm thinking that the iPad2 is not worth buying it if you already own an Ipad 1, I mean the iPad2's features (512Mb RAM, Dual Processor, crappy cameras) should have been on the iPad1, the iPad2 is STILL behind iPhone4 in some aspects, so I'm very disappointed, I think iPad2 should have been iPad1, iPad1 was a kind of fail because of its limited RAM memory, and now Apple wants us to buy iPad2 which presumingly solve the very limited web navigation but in the end is almost the same device with slight changes..., I'm looking for another tab (maybe Xoom, don't know...) or will wait for iPad3, I'm very disappointed, this seems to be an unfair marketing trick...

What do you think?

PD: excuse me for my bad english, I'm not a native speaker.
Click to expand...


The current iMac is what the iMac should have been. Also, the current PC is what the PC should have been. I think also cars too.
 
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