The iPad 2 and iOS 4.3 Announcementby Andrew Cunningham & Cara Hamm on March 2, 2011 11:21 PM EST
To further overuse a ridiculously overused phrase, the new iPad is evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The internals get what should be a nice bump, but the screen size and resolution remains the same, and we aren't going to see any major changes in the new tablet's interface or functionality. For the most part, it can do everything the original iPad could, just faster. Current iPad users who aren't bothered by the first-gen device's lack of a camera won't likely find a must-have reason to upgrade, especially since the first iPad will likely be supported by iOS 5 and beyond.
At the same time, users who found themselves unimpressed by the original iPad are unlikely to be won over by the iPad 2. A speed bump and a pair of cameras aren't enough to make the iPad more like a notebook if that's what you want.
However, the new iPad does attempt to further blur the line between full computers and tablets, a line that is only going to get blurrier as more Honeycomb tablets invade the market. The iPad still lacks a dedicated keyboard, which will probably always hamper its utility as a content creation device for me, but iMovie and GarageBand join the already existing iWork apps as decent tablet versions of desktop programs.
The iPad continues to be a good purveyor of the Apple Experience, a middle step between the iPhone and iPod Touch at the low-end and the MacBook Air or MacBook Pro at the high-end. We're missing a few performance and hardware details, and iOS is beginning to look a bit dated in comparison to Honeycomb, but none of these issues will likely stop the new iPad from being just as hot a seller as the previous version.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - linkI'm just wondering why people keep referring to this iPad as "more of the same" when just about everything but the screen was bumped up! And heck, were there not rumors of a "retina display iPad", I think the public would have been very satisfied with this update. Regardless, nothing can really top the original iPad announcement as we had zero expectations about what the device was about. This time, leaks were plentiful, and renders/cases from China were spot on.
I think what happened is people aren't "wowed" anymore because they know what's coming. That's why Apple tries to be so secretive until announcement day.
dagamer34 - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - linkOh, and iOS announcements are usually in March/April. It wouldn't be a good idea to announce the iPad 2 today, and then also change the UI in iOS 5. That's too many competing messages.
sprockkets - Wednesday, March 2, 2011 - linkIn case you haven't figured it out, it finally has features we expected from a tablet since day one. Apple does this, all the time, to milk money from its loyal followers.
And of course it follows the usual irrational design logic of being thinner or smaller in some way. For those who don't understand what that means, look at the ipod nano.
dagamer34 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - linkBefore the iPad, no "viable" tablets existed, unless you really want to count Windows tablets from 2002.
As a gen 1 device, the iPad stands well on it's own. If you felt like they were "holding back on you", no one was forcing you to buy an iPad. Forcing your own expectations onto a device is just wishful thinking.
And you're the first person I know to complain that being thinner on THIS device was a bad thing. We can discuss how bad the Nano is another time.
Juzcallmeneo - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - linkThere have been plenty of Tablets in the past. Lenovo, Dell, HP, Palm, Panasonic.. but I suppose since Almighty Jobs says his is revolutionary..it must be.
People are disappointed, because like everything apple makes it's already behind the times by the time it comes out..They put the minimal in to make it sell and screw the rest. It's not that anybody feels forced to buy it..it's just the other companies are taking too long to put out a real winner.
I'm not sure I like the extra thinness either. Lighter wouldn't be a bad thing..but ipad classic has overheating issues as it is, and it's already flimsy enough. Personally I would like to see a slight grip on the back of one of these (similar to the nook). As a flimsy and awkward mobile device it needs to be easier to hold onto.
And the reason they said it's more of the same is because put minimalistic hardware in and made the thing almost identical to the ancient one. That, and the iOS is just as boring as ever.
KoolAidMan1 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - link"There have been plenty of Tablets in the past. Lenovo, Dell, HP, Palm, Panasonic.. but I suppose since Almighty Jobs says his is revolutionary..it must be."
No, the *market* has spoken. PC tablets have flopped time and time again while the iPad is probably the biggest hit in consumer electronics. It sold more units faster than other consumer electronics blockbusters like the Nintendo Wii and the XBox 360. More iPads were sold in one year than 360s were sold in *three*. If that isn't mainstream success then I don't know what is.
So yeah, those other tablets you mentioned are irrelevant. Even if you don't accept that, other hardware companies seem to since they are scrambling to replicate what was done with the iPad a year ago.
Juzcallmeneo - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - linkNobody claimed that the businessman wasn't good at advertising. Nobody claimed America is full of smart consumers either..and I don't see a reason to discredit the tablets that Jobs stole his ideas from first.
If you believe that other companies are "scrambling" and "replicating" the ancient iPad..you have not done your homework. Take a look at who is now in charge of Google's Tablet OS team. Go take a look at Nvidia's boasting tactics and future hardware (they are almost as full of themselves as the leaders at Apple). Have you wondered why the new macbooks are not using the cards from the king in graphics anymore?
The one thing that Apple did actually bring to the table, is showing the rest of the companies that we are finally in the age where tablets can be popular for simple media consumption for many people. Now that they've done that they can leave.
Many past tablets have been moderately successful, but not so much used for media consumption..just business.
KoolAidMan1 - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - linkNo, they are actually scrambling to replicate what the iPad did, which was to pair a mobile OS and SoC with a large screen. Until then, it was all about putting power hungry desktop/notebook operating systems on the necessary hardware to drive it, with low battery life, running applications that were not optimized towards a 100% touchscreen interface.
It's chasing. And if you believe that it is a 100% media consumption device, you also aren't paying attention. It hasn't even been a year and I've seen a surprising number of iPads get adopted for business use.
The main thing other companies need to worry about, particularly Google, is software. It is actually more profitable to develop for Windows Phone 7. Android users for whatever reasons do not want to pay for apps. Unless Android users on tablets have different spending habits from Andoird users on phones, how are their tablets supposed to compete in terms of applications and practical usage? The hardware is just a platform, it doesn't mean much without software.
Juzcallmeneo - Thursday, March 3, 2011 - linkAre they replicating the iPad? or the Tablets that the iPad replicated....
When did I say 100%?
I know what the iPad is used for, most is media consumption..but no thats not all.
It is used in businesses where people have replaced their old tablets with the iPad trying to get a new and updated model that works faster than their outdated one..and the Capacitive touch screen (by toshiba & sharp) is also highly useful..however, the reason they got the iPad is not because the iPad is particularly good for business use..but because it was the ONLY one at the time worth any thing.
I can't tell you how many people I know are planning on getting the Playbook or a honey comb tablet. Most of them are businessmen/women.
The Xoom isnt great. Cheap LCD screen, Cheap front-facing camera, Cheap buttons, high price, honeycomb still in beta..but that doesn't mean that honeycomb won't be successful on the cheaper, more well built tablets in the future (Eee Pads, etc.)
It may be more profitable to create for other platforms, but that doesn't stop people from developing for the most open platform..haven't you noticed the skyrocketing number of apps available?
takumsawsherman - Friday, March 4, 2011 - linkI'm sure your hilarity is unintentional, but I must congratulate you. I have just read through this entire comment section because your comments are so amazing. Amazing, because it's a rare pleasure to see someone who has such dedication to expressing the hate they have for a company.
I can only imagine you were kept in focus by the music streaming to your Cowon J3 (?!?!)
Allow me to poorly summarize:
Apple only copied the tablet idea after seeing what other companies had made.
They were successful where others failed due to great marketing.
They limit the consumer in all sorts of ways, but the consumer in America is too stupid to figure out that there are better alternatives.
Businessmen/women are seeking alternatives to the iPad, like the PlayBook and Honeycomb based tablets.
Developers are choosing the open Android system over the iPad.
The iPad suffers from a lack of hardware capability.
You hate Apple.
Now, allow me to poorly summarize some reality for you:
Other companies tried to make tablets, but they were miserable failures because the nobody wanted the junk they were making. Others have already explained why. Apple made something that many people want. There are millions of people who really want an iPad, but haven't gotten one yet (they will). There are maybe thousands who really want a Honeycomb tablet or PlayBook. Many more may get them, but usually as misguided Christmas gifts from others (I saw a lot of this with Zune).
Apple is successful with the tablet because they try to think of what the user might like to do if given the opportunity. They are a user-centric company.
Users don't care about what you want to do with a tablet. They want a tablet that does things they would like to do, and does them well. They want it to sync easily on a Mac or PC. They want the system to work as expected.
Businessmen/women want an iPad. Many already have one. The majority wouldn't even consider an alternative. They don't care about any of the things you have mentioned. You don't know many successful businessmen/women. Successful businessmen/women are not going to buy a product that they feel has a high chance of being abandoned or forgotten. This describes the PlayBook. They also don't want a product that feels rough and unpolished if there is an alternative. This describes the Android experience.
99.99 percent of businessmen/women don't know what the PlayBook is, in this context. 99.9 percent don't know what HoneyComb is. 99.9 percent know what an iPad is. Most would like to have one.
Developers that want to make money (and know how to do so) will develop for iOS first. They will also develop for Android if they have the resources to do so after they have finished the iOS version. A few sorry souls will try to develop for PlayBook, hoping that by being the only ones doing so they will have less competition and make money. Typically, they will not make money.
The iPad has all the hardware it needs to make it an incredibly attractive product to billions of people.
Apple has widely-loved products precisely because they do not cater to people like you. It would be an endless and fruitless chase to worry about satisfying your whims. You have some slight technical ability, and enjoy the fact that you can use that technical ability to overcome annoyances on other platforms to achieve some marginal amount of flexibility as to how your electronics function.
The vast majority of people don't want a toaster that has a scale to weigh the bread. They want a toaster that fits their bread products, toasts well, and is reliable.
Most who are far more technically inclined want that exact same thing. When you spend your days fixing things for others or for yourself, it is a blessing to have a device that "just works". Such a device does not expect you to figure out how to make it perform it's functions. It is carefully engineered to make complex things simple.
One day, you may find some peace in therapy. I hope so, because self-medicating through internet rants is just a mental crutch for a soul with a bum leg.