smaller battery, faster processor, same battery life?

[clickerman]

I can't wait to see real world tests of ipad2. Battery technology hasn't improved that much in one year. I'll bet battery life won't be as long as original ipad.

 

[Pressure]

There is no reason why it shouldn't match last years model.

The biggest power hog of the entire device is the screen after all, whereas the System-on-a-Chip running the iPad merely sips power by comparison.

 

[BaBaBoooooooey]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

This guy has a point.
What's the point of having a tablet last any less than 10 hours?

Lol. Ask every other company that is now churning out tablets if thy can get anywhere close without making it 6" thick.

 

[Project-79]

iPad 1

iPad 2

Comparison



How exactly is the iPad 2’s battery smaller? Seems a lot bigger to me...

 

[clickerman]

Thanks for the info.

I thought the original iPad battery took up a larger portion of the case than shown in your photo.

 

[lilo777]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)

This guy has a point.
What's the point of having a tablet last any less than 10 hours?

Lol. Ask every other company that is now churning out tablets if thy can get anywhere close without making it 6" thick.

That's a pretty common misconception among iPad owners. Check some independent reviews, like this one on Anandtech. It shows that XOOM handily beats iPad 1 in battery life (9.52 vs 7.77 hours for web browsing) and just everything else (5x faster web page loading etc.)

iPad 1

iPad 2

Comparison



How exactly is the iPad 2’s battery smaller? Seems a lot bigger to me...

Well, without the third dimension (thickness) the picture does not really tell us much. The original battery easily might be twice thicker.

 

[deadwalrus]

Thanks for the info.

I thought the original iPad battery took up a larger portion of the case than shown in your photo.

Batteries are three dimensional, people. If I remember correctly, the iPad 2 is thinner than the original.

I don't know one way or the other, but 1 dimensional top-view shots don't really tell us anything about the relative size of the batteries.

 

[JulianL]

According to Apple tech specs the battery is the same capacity, both iPad 1 and 2 have a 25 watt-hour battery. I think the thinness is down to the fact that the deeply curved back of the iPad 1 was very space-inefficient and also there were pre-launch rumours that the iPad 2 screen is slightly thiner than the screen used with the iPad 1 so they can fit the same size battery into a thiner case by removing a lot of dead space.

Steve Jobs did say in the launch event that the A5 draws the same power and the A4 so with all else being equal then it's really down to keeping the A5 within the same power envelope as the A4 and a much more space-efficient case design.

- Julian

 

[dadoftwogirls]

I think it is pure speculation to say battery technology hasn't improved. Who cares really? Nobody believed Apple the first go around that the iPad would get 10 hours but it did. So why should we think they are lying now? Anyway their are so many variables and architecture in a design like this where they could have improved power consumption. So the batteries physical size may be inconsequential.

 

[ovrlrd]

Well, without the third dimension (thickness) the picture does not really tell us much. The original battery easily might be twice thicker.

Um we already know that the iPad 2 is 33% thinner, so you can do some simple maths to figure it out. Fact is the iPad 2 has a bigger battery, and while it might be a thinner battery also, it's still bigger. Plus the majority of the thickness savings on the iPad 2 is from the thinner screen, and other smaller components. The battery thickness probably has not gotten much smaller. Plus the 1st gen iPad's batteries were not exactly at the thickest part of the device, they were close to the center but off to each side, so it's not like they were super thick.

 

[Julien]

I think it is pure speculation to say battery technology hasn't improved...

Not really since lithium-ion battery technology is very mature. We need a "new" type of battery technology before we will see much of an improvement.

 

[Fraaaa]

That's a pretty common misconception among iPad owners. Check some independent reviews, like this one on Anandtech. It shows that XOOM handily beats iPad 1 in battery life (9.52 vs 7.77 hours for web browsing) and just everything else (5x faster web page loading etc.)




Well, without the third dimension (thickness) the picture does not really tell us much. The original battery easily might be twice thicker.

You are misquoting. Xoom beats the iPad1 only on 3G, they are the same in wifi browsing(9.7 vs 9.4 hours) and the wifi speed the Xoom was a fifth faster not five times(36Mbps vs 30.4 MBps). And just everything else what? Apple iPad1 is not even listed in the performance table, how can it beat it? Beside iPad1 is a year old, make a fair comparison with this year hardware.

Also I like to quote:

After using the Xoom for the past couple of days I can say that while the experience isn’t horrible by any means, Honeycomb isn’t anywhere near as stable as Froyo on the Atrix 4G. I’ve had many application crashes in both older Android apps and native Honeycomb apps. For a while there I couldn’t get the Android Twitter app to work at all, even after a reboot.

Edit: about the speed I might have misunderstood. I think you have might refer to the sunspider benchmark. Well, in 4.3 Safari is improved we have to see that tested.