New iPad branding - would iPad2 HD been better?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by Booji, Apr 8, 2012.

  1. Booji macrumors 6502a


    Nov 17, 2011
    When the new iPad came out, I was sure it would be marketed as an extension of the iPad2 - something like iPad2 HD.

    Positioning the new iPad as an upgraded graphics version of the iPad2 would have quashed a lot of the objections of weight, heat and battery life - those opting for the HD model would be clear that it costs more and there would some slight compromises on weight.

    They could have announced the price reduction of the iPad2 but keeping with the higher storage options, and still be able to claim the weight and battery life of the basic range (unlike they do now by only offering 16gb)

    I realize this is not that much different then they already do now, but marking makes a huge difference on how the product is perceived - especially to non-tech types or newbies.

    Its hard to fault Apple here since I'm sure they did their share of homework, but to me it seems as if they extended the iPad2 rather than replace it would have made more sense to me.
  2. space dog macrumors newbie

    Mar 14, 2012
    The product was a substantial upgrade to the iPad 2, claiming it is an "iPad 2 HD" would be like saying its just an iPad 2S and it's far better than that. And adding to the name would make the numbering even more convoluted, the idea was dropping the numbering all together for simplicity and not having to worry about the sound of "iPad 10", etc. It'd be confusing regarding what to name the iPad after the "iPad 2 HD" also.
  3. number84 macrumors 6502

    Mar 30, 2011
    Who cares what it's called. People will buy it either way.
  4. Macman45 macrumors G5


    Jul 29, 2011
    Somewhere Back In The Long Ago
    The naming of the 4S was a stopgap in Apples R&D process, and caused much uproar here. The new iPad, the third generation iPad or the iPad 2012. Are all acceptable, although most accessory retailers call it the iPad 3..:)
  5. Skika macrumors 68030

    Mar 11, 2009
  6. iHeartsteve macrumors 65816


    Feb 12, 2012
    Creative idea :) however its not cohesive w apples other naming conventions.
  7. Booji thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Nov 17, 2011
    Seems very consistent when comparing to iPhone 4 vs. 4S and iPhone 3 vs. 3g. Since both retained the same form factor yet updated the technical bits.

    Model number changes corresponded to form factor changes. iPad2 looks different than the original iPad, yet same as the new iPad.
  8. scottw324 macrumors 6502

    Mar 5, 2012
    Should have just been called iPad HD. Then they could call the next the iPad HD2.


    Really??? Seems that it would make perfect sense to me based on it's resolution being higher than Bluray which is considered HD. So you would prefer what, iPad HDHD (High Definition High Definition? Or maybe iPad UHD (Ultra High Definition). :)
  9. erawsd macrumors 6502

    Jul 1, 2011
    The "HD" moniker is so overused and stale at this point there is no way Apple would ever use it.

    Dropping the numbering system is the best thing they could have done. It brings the iPad in line with the rest of their computer line.
  10. Skika macrumors 68030

    Mar 11, 2009
    So you acknowledge that iPad has an higher resolution than Full HD ( not just HD ) and yet you suggest the HD name :confused:.

    No, i would preffer it being called just iPad.
  11. Booji thread starter macrumors 6502a


    Nov 17, 2011
    I understand Apple's motivation - I think dropping the number would have been better on the next update.

    What the new iPad really is about is the screen. Where people get disappointed or confused is that many expected the upgrade to be more than just the screen and the processor dedicated to supporting the resolution. All you have to do is look at numerous postings on this board to confirm that.

    In markets outside of the US, Apple has now had to go back to consumers and offer refunds because they did not make it clear that the 4G frequency that the new iPad supports is only available in the US. Putting the emphasis on the screen (HD) could have probably avoided some confusion.
  12. Stealthipad macrumors 68040


    Apr 30, 2010
    I agree with the others. As the name is now past tense, who cares. You can call your device what ever you want!

    Apple is not going to, all of a sudden, have a iPad "re-naming" event, so lets try to get past this and move on:p
  13. New Apple macrumors regular

    Mar 29, 2012
    for me they could have called it Amelia
    i like it anyways :D
  14. Pressure macrumors 68040


    May 30, 2006
    Look at their computers.

    If anything, the naming convention of the iPad 2 was off.

    It should simply have been called the iPad (2nd generation), like they do with iPods and their computers.

    It's not like the newest iMac is called iMac 7 is it?
  15. iHeartsteve macrumors 65816


    Feb 12, 2012
    What I meant was the models are given for sequential order, 1,2, 2s, 3. Etc. Appple doesn't name them after the 'upgrade' description. You would like it to be HD which makes perfect sense and I think its a nice idea. However it's not how apple previously named other models. And what are they going to do when the next upgrade doesn't have a short and sweet acronym?
  16. GraphicsGeek macrumors 6502a

    Sep 19, 2008
    Technically all the iPads are HD. 720p HD but still considered HD. So, no, iPad 2HD would not have made sense.
  17. MykullMyerz macrumors 6502


    Dec 6, 2006
    Washington, D.C.
    It wouldn't make sense to you because, as your name shows, you're a graphics geek but to the average consumer it would make perfect sense, especially considering the exponential jump in resolution.
  18. ZBoater macrumors G3


    Jul 2, 2007
    Sunny Florida
    Ummm, no. 1024x768 is not HD. 1280x720 is HD. So is 1920x1080. So NONE of the iPads are HD, technically. :D
  19. spiderman0616 macrumors 68040


    Aug 1, 2010
    I don't get why people can't understand Apple's motivations here. It's a move to get away from the numbering system. iPod Touches are just iPod Touches. Not iPod Touch 2, iPod Touch 3, iPod Touch 4, etc. Same with Macs. Same with Apple TV. Same with Airports.

    That's why iPad-->iPad 2 made no sense and why the iPhone naming progression makes no sense. They're switcing to just iPad for all future models and will probably do the same on the iPhone.
  20. andyblila macrumors 65816


    Jul 8, 2008
    On My iPhone, or my iPad?

    I certainly hope this is the case. I don't want the iPhone 963. I just want an iPhone! I like this new naming policy and hope that it sticks!
  21. s15119 macrumors 65816


    Nov 20, 2010
  22. drenline macrumors 6502a


    Aug 8, 2010
  23. interfreak macrumors regular


    Mar 14, 2012
    Queensland, Australia
  24. TheLegend macrumors member


    Dec 16, 2010
    Nobody complained when they announced each MBP as "The New MacBook Pro", yet everyone seems to be unhappy about "The New iPad". Just like MBPs, it's probably that eventually the iPads will become known as 2012 iPad, 2013 iPad etc.

Share This Page