Should the New iPad have been the iPad 2?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by iDabble, Mar 17, 2012.

  1. iDabble macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #1
    disclaimer: I am not complaining about Apple or the new iPad. I was not forced to buy a new iPad and have every right to return it. I'm happy with my new iPad and I hope you all are happy with yours :D

    I'm just trying to make an actual discussion and not trying to troll anyone.

    Around this time last year we were all convinced that following the iPhone 4, the iPad 2 would have a retina display. There was major uproar that it didn't, but aside from the screen everything else was a pretty solid upgrade.

    Now, aside from LTE, the retina display is the only real upgrade. So basically, the new iPad is what we were all expecting last year from the iPad 2.


    Again, not complaining, because with a device like a tablet there's only so much that can change. With an item who's prominent feature is it's display, you can only redesign it so much. And the dual core processor in there is plenty fast for my uses. It just seems like this is what we all wanted last year.
     
  2. MykullMyerz macrumors 6502

    MykullMyerz

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    #2
    I wasn't anticipating a retina screen at all. I knew Apple wouldn't put one into the iPad until they figured how to do so without sacrificing battery life; which is what is most important to me. What's the point of having a beautiful screen if your battery dies every other hour. I'm glad Apple waited until now because they were able to implement it and still maintain superb battery life and the beautiful, slim form factor that's synonymous with iOS devices.
     
  3. identity, Mar 17, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2012

    identity macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2011
    #3
    Apple always operates differently than what we expect. I have no problem with there being an iPad 2 and new iPad.
     
  4. ktmracer350 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2011
  5. iDabble thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #5
    ^
    I never said LTE wasn't a "real" upgrade...

    ^^
    I'm not talking about the name...

    Agreed that it's nice that they waited until it was polished enough to implement effectively *cough*siri*cough*

    I guess we all weren't expecting a retina display...but there were certainly a lot of people who were.
     
  6. Eric8199 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    #6
    I don't think so. Both upgrades were nice upgrades, but not necessary ones. If you were stuck on the old hardware, it wasn't that bad. I really don't want huge upgrades every year because I'm hoping from here forward to get a new iPad every two years or so. I was just waiting for the retina display, otherwise I wouldn't have upgraded to the iPad 3.

    That being said, you act like this is not a significant upgrade. You're wrong. Retina display is huge in itself, and is my sole reason for upgrading. However, you also went from having a camera that was unusable to one that is very nice. The RAM has increased and for the gamers (I'm not one of them), they got quad core graphics. I think overall this upgrade is just as significant as the one from the iPad 1 to the iPad 2. For some reason many are conditioned to think that an upgrade is only significant if the body of the device changes. They could keep the internals the same and change the case and everyone would be thrilled.

    Not me. I like the current design, and don't really want them to change it. Now the iPhone, I welcome a change to that, because I hate the square design on the 4 and the 4S. But the iPad design is perfect. IMHO.
     
  7. MykullMyerz macrumors 6502

    MykullMyerz

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2006
    Location:
    Washington, D.C.
    #7
    Yea, but I think that's a result of Apple blowing us away with the first iPhone and first iPad, so people expect something revolutionary every time, but Apple can only work within the technological limitations provided to them, like every other tech company.
     
  8. DS3 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    #8
    No way. Plenty of people questioned if the technology was there at the time to support a retina screen of that size in a tablet, and now with another year of development there are still some hiccups like a slow charging time and some reported choppiness in various uses. If they had released it last year with a lesser GPU and perhaps a lesser battery and less time to work on other aspects.. who knows how well it would have gone over.

    Unless the argument is that they could have just skipped the 2 and then released this one now as the 2, in which case... no way, 2 was a great device that still has a place now.

    Theres nothing wrong with it taking a whole 2 device releases for people to really feel compelled to update.
     
  9. iDabble thread starter macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2010
    #9


    I agree with pretty much everything you said. Although I don't really consider the quad core processor to be worth mentioning as I assume it was necessary to power the retina display.

    As for the bolded part, I agree completely. If you watch "Objectified" (awesome documentary, used to be on Netflix, might still be there) Jony Ive says his challenge with design is removing all of the unnecessary parts. With the iPad they've done that perfectly. I don't even see how they really could change the design.

    I'm just saying that if you flash back to this forum a 390 days ago, many thought that the iPad 2 would have most of the features that the new iPad has.
     
  10. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #10
    on some levels, yes the new iPad should have been the iPad 2. I mean think about in terms of design. The new iPad is thicker, and weighs more than the iPad 2, and is less than the iPad 1. So in terms of weight and thickness: 2 < 3 < 1.

    It certainly would be interesting to think about what the current iPad would be like had the current iPad become the iPad 2. (iPad 3 is actually iPad 2, nad right now we would be seeing a an upgraded iPad 3... if that makes any sense ;P)
     
  11. KPOM, Mar 17, 2012
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2012

    KPOM macrumors G5

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2010
    #11
    Tech writers always seem to hype up Apple's adoption of new technology, even though time and time again Apple operates more slowly than they expect. For instance, when the first MacBook Air came out, there was plenty of hype about a then-recent Apple patent for a docking station. When the MacBook Air was introduced without that docking station, it led to an initial backlash in the press.

    Similarly, there was massive hype about a touchscreen Mac (which has still never materialized and likely won't as long as they stick with the strategy Steve Jobs articulated at the Lion launch). Then "everyone" predicted a thinner iPhone 5 last year with a 4" screen and LTE. It was the same with the expectations of a Retina Display last year.

    What all these have in common is that they assume Apple is going to adopt technology as soon as it comes out. They rarely do that. Instead, they wait for technology to mature to the point where it works smoothly.

    12 months ago, the technology for a 2048x1536 9.7" screen was very new. As it was, apparently Sharp struggled to get the quality up to Apple's standards. GPU technology also was not as advanced as it is today. Had Apple released an iPad 2 with a Retina Display likely it would have been heavier and slower than the device released yesterday, with worse battery life.

    It seems to me that whatever Apple does, it will be criticized. They released Siri in beta form for the iPhone 4S, and got complaints that it wasn't polished, and was a gimmick. Then a few months later reviewers are complaining that Siri wasn't included in the new iPad (apparently it is no longer a gimmick). People complained that the iPhone 4S didn't have LTE, but now when the new iPad has LTE people are complaining that it weighs more because they made the battery bigger to accommodate the additional power demands. Maybe in a year or two if Apple adds the rumored haptic feedback people will complain that they should have done it in 2012.
     
  12. taedouni macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Location:
    California
    #12
    Simply no. Apple did not have the AX5 chip ready to handle the retina display. The wait was well worth it.
     
  13. WLS macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    #13
    pointless discussion but here it is. Actually the iPad 2 should have been the iPad 1. The iPad 2 fixed what was wrong with the iPad1 and even changed the the design. The iPad 1 just wasn't ready for prime time and rushed out. Of course then if you accept that the 1 was a mistake and the 2 should have been the 1 then yes by default the 3 should have been the 2 and all would have been right in this space time continuum. So there you have it. :p
     

Share This Page