I didn't realize how popular iPads were

[SlitheryDee]

I caved and will now admit that tablets are handy. A tiny touchscreen computer that you can use for many day-to-day tasks without going blind, for a very modest amount of money? Yep, Apple hit the nail on the head with that one.

...then they increased the price 400%. And people still bought it.

Anyone who spend $4-600 on an iPad when they can get a comparable Android tablet for 1-200 is a fucking idiot.

There's plenty of android tablets in that price range that are serviceable, but they simply aren't as good as either of the new ipads. This isn't a delusion or mass hallucination that everyone is having simultaneously. You've read the reviews. You've seen the graphs. It's not just some subjective "opinion" that I'm stating here.

I like my Nexus 7. It's the smoothest, quickest android experience I've ever had personally. It is still not as good as an ipad mini w/retina in any metric but price. That doesn't bother me that much because I have made peace with the fact that I live in a world where better generally costs more. It doesn't bother me that apple gives you the option to pay more for a better product. Why would it? I'm probably not even going to buy either of the new ipads because my android tablet is good enough, but I can still see what is plainly true.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Can you show me a $100-$200 Android tablet with the same size, quality of screen, battery life, performance and long term support as an iPad?

I'd like to see this mythical device.

If we are fair about it and compare Google's cheapest tablet (the $229 16GB Nexus 7) or heck even its second cheapest tablet (the $269 32GB Nexus 7) to Apple's cheapest tablet (the $299 iPad Mini) than Google's offerings are a better value in every single way (except raw screen size).

 

[nForce2]

Anyone with the last gen ipad will feel like a caveman looser. I'm lining up to get mine

Which is really funny, in a way, because so many people with the iPad 3 got upset when the iPad 4 came out. :biggrin: You just have to accept the fact that whatever you buy, there will always be something better just right around the corner.

The iPad 1 is really old now in mobile terms. Its SoC is like a tenth as powerful as an A7 in the new iPads.

It was never a great device hardware-wise. Those who bought first-gen iPads were like first gen iPhone users- they paid a premium to play with the first gen of a new category of devices.

It wasn't until the iPad 2 that the category had a refined product.

The iPad 1 was pretty slick when it came out... it's the later software updates that squeezed the system memory so much that really killed the overall user experience. :|

And as time has gone on, and more and more apps require higher versions of iOS, you pretty much have to update them to iOS 5.x now if you want to be able to run up-to-date apps (and many are simply not available).

I already explained it in this thread. The original iPad only has 256 MB RAM. Big, big problem for current versions of iOS. The iPad 2 has twice the RAM.

It's not only that - the system memory doubled, but when you look at the usage without the OS slice, the amount of memory available to applications saw a HUGE increase. Something like 4-6x. :thumbsup:

 

[Kadarin]

Weight in the mobile sector is everything. Same performance with 2/3rds(3/4ths?) the weight? I can understand the appeal.

<--doesn't own an apple product

Not "same performance", but considerably more performance:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/13...-80-performance-boosts-tweaked-a7-clock-speed

 

[Fritzo]

How many are in each box? I wonder what the retail value of the inventory in that photo is.

There's one in each box. They really increased the screen size and battery life on the new ones.

 

[CZroe]

...The iPad 1 was pretty slick when it came out... it's the later software updates that squeezed the system memory so much that really killed the overall user experience. :|

Actually, it was horribly underpowered even at launch, The original iPad launched with iOS3 (wasn't even called iOS back then, IIRC). They knew good and well that multitasking was coming with iOS4 in a few short months but they released it with 256MB of RAM anyway and promised that they would make it work. The iOS4 launch came and went... without the iPad. It took them many weeks (months?) extra to get iOS4 working on the original iPad just well enough to release it. That's pretty solid evidence that the iPad's hardware was underpowered before it even launched.

 

[Platypus]

I don't think I believe your thread title.

 

[The_Dude8]

I still have the ipad 1.

 

[Ichinisan]

I would take a picture of the iPhone rack at work but I got in trouble when I took a pic of the boxes of 5C's and 5S's that came in.

Lets just say they are really, really popular.

I saved that pic to see if it had GPS info in the EXIF data. Didn't get around to checking on that...

 

[Eug]

Actually, it was horribly underpowered even at launch, The original iPad launched with iOS3 (wasn't even called iOS back then, IIRC). They knew good and well that multitasking was coming with iOS4 in a few short months but they released it with 256MB of RAM anyway and promised that they would make it work. The iOS4 launch came and went... without the iPad. It took them many weeks (months?) extra to get iOS4 working on the original iPad just well enough to release it. That's pretty solid evidence that the iPad's hardware was underpowered before it even launched.

Yeah. Some of us with older hardware (iPhones) saw the writing on the wall, and avoided the iPad 1.

It's also a common pattern with Apple. They release a cool new product that is underpowered. It catches the early adopters and a chunk of the mainstream too. Then they release version 2 which is much, much more capable.

 

[poofyhairguy]

It's also a common pattern with Apple. They release a cool new product that is underpowered. It catches the early adopters and a chunk of the mainstream too. Then they release version 2 which is much, much more capable.

Mac Mini Power PC (weak CPU)-> Mac Mini Intel Dual Core

iPhone 1 (no 3G)-> iPhone 3G

iPad 1 (weak SoC)-> iPad 2

iPad 3 (weak and large SoC)-> iPad 4

2012 13-inch rMBP (low UI framerates) -> 2013 rMPB with Iris Graphics

iPad Mini (no-retina display and old iPad 2 Soc) -> iPad Mini Retina

 

[phucheneh]

RE: Hugely better value in Adroid tablets...

As mentioned, Nook HD+ retails for $149. iPad2 is still, unbelievably, $399.

The Nook is more of a...well, a tablet...whereas the iPad is...well, a giant iPhone. So the latter has a camera/mic and probably some other things that I have yet to miss in the Nook.

But in the Nook's favor: >1080p screen. Lighter. Takes SD cards. Double the RAM. Probably other stuff...did I mention that the inferior iPad2 costs 267% more?

Okay, let's make it more fair. Less basic, more costly Android versus newer $499 iPad. Ignoring the absurd prices Apple charges for memory (i.e. I'm being nice by not mentioning the >16GB iPads that cost $600-800)...

I don't know if anything matches Apple's display resolution yet. So they've got that. But if you can settle for 1920x1200 in a 9-10" screen...there are Android tablets with all the same gizmos in the $200-300 range. Yes, there are diminishing returns in the 'value' department, as is to be expected. The latest and greatest from a big name like Samsung isn't going to chop Apple's pricing off at the knees; frankly, I think they COULD, but it's win-win if they don't...more profit per sale, and they don't risk their 'status symbol'...status. Samsung: I don't like Apple, but I'm NOT POOR, DAMMIT.

But, as stated, the competitiveness of devices in the 100-200 range really makes the more expensive ones seem silly.

 

[dainthomas]

There's plenty of android tablets in that price range that are serviceable, but they simply aren't as good as either of the new ipads. This isn't a delusion or mass hallucination that everyone is having simultaneously. You've read the reviews. You've seen the graphs. It's not just some subjective "opinion" that I'm stating here.

Of course it's true. But I'm not paying 4x the price of my HD+ for benchmark points when it literally does everything I need without a hiccup.

 

[Ns1]

RE: Hugely better value in Adroid tablets...

As mentioned, Nook HD+ retails for $149. iPad2 is still, unbelievably, $399.

The Nook is more of a...well, a tablet...whereas the iPad is...well, a giant iPhone. So the latter has a camera/mic and probably some other things that I have yet to miss in the Nook.

But in the Nook's favor: >1080p screen. Lighter. Takes SD cards. Double the RAM. Probably other stuff...did I mention that the inferior iPad2 costs 267% more?

Okay, let's make it more fair. Less basic, more costly Android versus newer $499 iPad. Ignoring the absurd prices Apple charges for memory (i.e. I'm being nice by not mentioning the >16GB iPads that cost $600-800)...

I don't know if anything matches Apple's display resolution yet. So they've got that. But if you can settle for 1920x1200 in a 9-10" screen...there are Android tablets with all the same gizmos in the $200-300 range. Yes, there are diminishing returns in the 'value' department, as is to be expected. The latest and greatest from a big name like Samsung isn't going to chop Apple's pricing off at the knees; frankly, I think they COULD, but it's win-win if they don't...more profit per sale, and they don't risk their 'status symbol'...status. Samsung: I don't like Apple, but I'm NOT POOR, DAMMIT.

But, as stated, the competitiveness of devices in the 100-200 range really makes the more expensive ones seem silly.

but...does the kindle fire have instagram?

 

[rudeguy]

I saved that pic to see if it had GPS info in the EXIF data. Didn't get around to checking on that...

Even easier; its on my g+ so there is already a map.

 

[Hugo Drax]

I bought the 1pad 1 3g 64gb when it first came out. I am upgrading to the Ipad air 128gb LTE.

so its gonna be an interesting experience to compare/contrast the two.

 

[rockfella79]

Apple is very much in demand! More than we know.

 

[Koing]

Anyone with the last gen ipad will feel like a caveman looser. I'm lining up to get mine

I'm on an iphone4

Koing

 

[Joe1987]

Of course it's true. But I'm not paying 4x the price of my HD+ for benchmark points when it literally does everything I need without a hiccup.

The HD+ is a lagfest, even with CM on it.

 

[LightPattern]

iPad 1 (weak SoC)-> iPad 2

iPad 3 (weak and large SoC)-> iPad 4

iPad Mini (no-retina display and old iPad 2 Soc) -> iPad Mini Retina

This is why I jumped on the iPad 4 bandwagon late in the game. I read the speculation that the biggest difference in the new iPad would be that it would be drastically thinner/more lightweight and didn't want to be an early adopter of possibly flimsy tech.
That combined w/ wanting it for an extended trip I was taking made me pull the trigger.

 

[poofyhairguy]

This is why I jumped on the iPad 4 bandwagon late in the game. I read the speculation that the biggest difference in the new iPad would be that it would be drastically thinner/more lightweight and didn't want to be an early adopter of possibly flimsy tech.
That combined w/ wanting it for an extended trip I was taking made me pull the trigger.

Now that we know about the 64bit RAM penalty that was maybe a good move.

 

[Eug]

Now that we know about the 64bit RAM penalty that was maybe a good move.

The iPad 4 is a fine machine, but still, I'm not sure I agree. Even with the 64-bit RAM penalty, I'd take the Air over the iPad 4, and that's even if the iPad 4 were $100 cheaper.

The difference in weight is remarkable. 469 grams for the iPad Air, and 652 grams for the iPad 4. IOW, the iPad 4 weighs almost 40% more than the Air.

http://www.iphonehacks.com/2013/10/ipad-air-vs-ipad-4.html

Actually, if you get a refurb though, the iPad 4 is $120 cheaper. The iPad 2 is lighter, but costs more new. I'd rather get a refurb iPad 4 than a new iPad 2, for obvious reasons.

 

[Aikouka]

I probably would have upgraded my iPad if they went with TouchID and starting the $499 model at 32GB. I agree with Anand's comment that a 16GB start is getting a bit long in the tooth. It's not bad with the iPhone, because I tend to avoid big games on it, but the bigger screen in the iPad is perfect for them. However, with plenty of games hitting 1GB, 16GB is getting a bit long in the tooth. They should really go 32/64/128 at the current 16/32/64 price points. 2GB memory is a nice thing, but I didn't consider it a requirement.

 

[nForce2]

Actually, it was horribly underpowered even at launch, The original iPad launched with iOS3 (wasn't even called iOS back then, IIRC). They knew good and well that multitasking was coming with iOS4 in a few short months but they released it with 256MB of RAM anyway and promised that they would make it work. The iOS4 launch came and went... without the iPad. It took them many weeks (months?) extra to get iOS4 working on the original iPad just well enough to release it. That's pretty solid evidence that the iPad's hardware was underpowered before it even launched.

So, exactly like I said, it wasn't at all underpowered at launch - it was bogged down by the later software updates.


"But you don't have to take my word for it."

Engadget, Apple iPad review, Apr 3rd, 2010:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/04/03/apple-ipad-review/

In our testing, the A4 SOC seemed to deal with whatever we threw at it handily. From opening and rendering webpages to playing the most graphically intensive games (including scaled iPhone versions, of course), it didn't miss a beat. The photo app was particularly impressive, allowing for fast scrolling through high resolution pictures without a hiccup, and handling rotation and zooming with no resistance or hesitation.

Apple promises that web browsing on the iPad will be, to quote Steve Jobs, "The best browsing experience you've ever had." Let's just go over that one more time -- Steve Jobs says that the browsing experience will be the best you've ever had. So, is it? Well, we can tell you this: the browsing experience on the iPad is amazing. It is smooth, fast, and fluid. The screen displays beautifully in landscape or portrait, the scrolling is buttery, touch response is out of this world, and you can easily pinch-to-zoom all over the place with nary a hiccup. The finger-based navigation really is kind of spectacular, and it makes browsing weirdly like rediscovering an old friend. Other additions to the app like a proper bookmarks bar, use of toolbar drop downs, and an improved tab grid make it a pleasure to use. It is without question one of the best browsing experiences we've encountered.

State of the Art - David Pogue's Review of the iPad, The New York Times, March 31, 2010:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/01/technology/personaltech/01pogue.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

At least Apple had the decency to give the iPad a really fast processor. Things open fast, scroll fast, load fast. Surfing the Web is a heck of a lot better than on the tiny iPhone screen — first, because it’s so fast, and second, because you don’t have to do nearly as much zooming and panning

The original iPad: Macworld's complete review, April 3, 2010:
http://www.macworld.com/article/1150330/ipadreview.html

Speed test

Sunspider
iPad 10.4
iPod touch 64GB (late 2009) 15.6
iPhone 3GS 15.5 2nd-gen.
iPod touch 33.4
iPhone 3G 40.8
1st-gen. iPod touch 44.9
iPhone (original) 43.0

Results are in seconds. Best results in bold. Reference systems in italic.
iPad tested with iPhone OS 3.2. All other devices were tested running iPhone OS 3.1.

With the iPhone and iPod touch, Apple has been reluctant to talk about processors and speeds, preferring to treat those products as magical black boxes. But we must forgive Apple for crowing a little bit about the processor that powers the iPad, because it was custom-designed by Apple itself. The new A4 processor, running at 1GHz, is a "system on a chip"- in other words, it was built to run the iPad, not chosen from a parts list and adapted to work for the iPad.
Geeky chip talk aside, the iPad flies. It was fast at almost everything I threw at it. The only times I found myself waiting were either for content to download over the network or for one of the iWork apps to convert a file into its native file format. Games played smoothly, with gorgeous graphics. There’s no lag when panning and zooming around large images. Any touch-based device stands or falls based on how quickly and smoothly the content on the screen can react to the movement of fingers on that screen. The iPad passes that test masterfully.
As a bare measure of speed, I ran the SunSpider JavaScript performance test from within the iPad’s Safari browser. The iPad passed the tests in 10.4 seconds. Last September I ran that same test on every iPhone OS model ever released, and the fastest device of the lot (the iPhone 3GS) ran the test in 15.5 seconds. (In contrast, the original iPhone took 43 seconds to run that test.) So the iPad has taken the crown as the fastest iPhone OS device on the planet.

Ars Technica reviews the iPad, Apr 6 2010:
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2010/04/ipad-review/17/

All that being said, we can tell you that right now the iPad is significantly faster than any smartphone we've tested. It's our opinion this is largely due to the 1GHz clockspeed of the new processor, Apple's A4, but we'll talk about this issue a little later. In our battery of Web-based benchmarks, the iPad consistently outperformed all mobile comers, in some cases by quite a wide margin. First we’ll look at the benchmarks, and then we’ll talk about why the iPad is so much faster than the competition.

"horribly underpowered even at launch"? Nope. :whiste:

 

[Ns1]

reviewer bias, obviously.