6 ms·

The iPad 2

116 points by solipsist 16y ago

Garbage 16y ago
>>... considering that it arrives just 11 months after the original. But it is in no way a radical or significant departure from last year’s model. I like the way he used the sentence. I think he meant, "But it is in no way a radical or significant improvement from last year's model"
- rbarooah 16y ago
  I doubt he meant that given that he devoted paragraph after paragraph to describing all the improvements.
- melling 16y ago
  I'm on the every other device plan. Technology doesn't change enough every year to justify the upgrade. Every other Apple upgrade is good, and it works out that I'm staggering the iPhone and iPad. This year the 3GS gets traded in for the 5. Next year the iPad 3.
- po 16y ago
  I think you're trying to make a joke about how the iPad 2 isn't any better than the first but it doesn't make sense. Any village idiot could tell you the iPad 2 is better than the original. There's not a single feature that got worse. So then the operative part is was it radical or significant? Well, Gruber's whole point is that Apple launches radical products and then slowly improves them. He even concedes that it's probably not worth upgrading for many people: Most of the 15 million original iPads sold to date do not need to be replaced by iPad 2s. That’s not a problem for Apple, nor a failure for the iPad 2. A $500-800 device should have a useful life that is longer than a year. So what exactly are you trying to say? I think this kind of analysis of Apple's process is far more interesting than the resultant products.
  - Garbage 16y ago
    You got me wrong. I wasn't trying to make joke out of it. I was just admiring his writing style. On a side note, I have never used an iPad and probably never will.
    - po 16y ago
      I see; I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt then. It's so hard to get tone with online comments. FWIW, I think the idea of it not being a departure is significant. He's saying that they are sticking to the core themes that motivated the iPad. Sure, it's getting improved, but he's saying they got the kernel right. Look at the Apple TV by comparison. There was a significant departure from the approach of the first version to the current version. You can very easily make the argument that the main theme/motivation of the Apple TV still hasn't quite gelled. The fact that Apple doesn't put their full weight behind pushing it means they probably know they haven't gotten it nailed down quite yet. … and getting it nailed down is a business problem more than a technical one.
- wtallis 16y ago
  I took that sentence as meaning that the iPad 2 as a whole isn't a redesign, and that the user-visible changes were only to things that needed changing: speed, weight, thickness and cases, and not much else.
jakewalker 16y ago
If Gruber is right, what Apple did with the Smart Covers is really remarkable. First, they'll get an extremely high attach rate, probably north of 75% or 80%, much of which is probably pure profit. Second, it may be enough of a feature to convince some iPad 1 owners to buy an iPad 2 (and a Smart Cover). What an absolutely shrewd design that is likely to lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and profit for Apple.
- staunch 16y ago
  Why can't someone just make a smart cover (sans the auto-on/off?) for the iPad 1?
  - solipsist 16y ago
    Apple said they built the smart cover and the iPad 2 at the same time, so there is hardware in the iPad 2 that is required for the cover to work. Primarily, the magnets needed to have the cover attach.
  - po 16y ago
    The original iPad doesn't have anything on the left side for the magnets to grip onto.
  - xuki 16y ago
    You need the built-in magnet inside the ipad 2.
    - fluidcruft 16y ago
      Why can't you use adhesive magnetic strips/tape on the outside of the iPad 1? Sure, it may be slightly unsightly, but it should be completely workable. Heck, the strip doesn't even have to be magnetic, it can be paramagnetic or such and just channel field between magnets on the cover hinge.
      - deleted 16y ago
        [deleted]
ugh 16y ago
HN hates Gruber with a passion but votes his review all the way to the top. Beats me. Here are other reviews but they all sound pretty much like Gruber’s: http://www.macworld.com/article/158439/2011/03/ipad2.html http://www.macworld.com/article/158439/2011/03/ipad2.html http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/
- po 16y ago
  Hacker News doesn't hate John Gruber. Gruber polarizes Hacker News, just like Apple does.
  - podperson 16y ago
    I think right now Apple (and Google) can polarize individuals. I can love each one minute and hate each the next -- they're both capable of delighting and infuriating in equal measure, even within a single product. (Love Chrome, hate the anti-h264 move. Love iOS, hate the App Store approval process and the kludgy mess of certificates.) And both are getting scary powerful.
    - redthrowaway 16y ago
      What's wrong with anti-h.264? Firefox was never going to support it, nor was Opera, so as a web developer you would have had to implement something else anyway, likely flash. Now you implement WebM instead of h.264, and you still have to implement flash because 20% of the people out there are still using ie6 and 7/8 aren't a whole lot better on this front. Basically, you're replacing a closed codec with an open one. MS and Apple will put WebM in IE and Safari if there's sufficient adoption, as it doesn't cost them anything to do so. You may not care about open codecs that aren't laden with patents, but I can't see how this makes things worse. All of the kvetching about this move extending Flash's lifetime is pointless given the fact it wasn't going anywhere anyway.
  - mbreese 16y ago
    More importantly: polarization tends to fuel good discussion. The Gruber pieces that tend to get picked up here involve big Apple stories: new hardware, OS X, and developer policies. And on those, everyone has an opinion.
aashpak1 16y ago
May be a bit off topic but I think, With new superior models coming every year, time for Apple to do some innovation in the business-model (well, in addition to the app-ecosystem they created) and move to a subscription-based model :) One pays few grands (say $2k) every year to upgrade i/pod/phone/pad to the latest version. (well, they have recycling program with 90% depreciation!!)
- gojomo 16y ago
  A sort of Apple Prime?
- Stormbringer 16y ago
  You may remember that Microsoft wanted to move to an annual subscription model for Windows. I distinctly remember Balmer rubbing his hands together and cackling with glee about how they were going to make much more money that way (as he pushed another couple of nosy kids into the oven of his gingerbread house). As it turned out, this made an enormous amount of people unhappy. I think they abandoned it. Apple does have an annual subscription service, MobileMe (or whatever they are calling it this week). As far as I can tell it has had a very low rate of adoption, despite coming free (for a limited time) with new Macs. Heck, I have a hard enough time convincing random (Mac using) strangers to buy a damn external drive and turn on Time Machine. Don't underestimate user inertia.
- naner 16y ago
  Best Buy has some kind of buyback program. I don't know anything about it (like if it applies to Apple products) but they are advertising it.
- WillyF 16y ago
  Best Buy is kind of doing this with their "buy back" program. If Apple continues becoming more and more predictable in terms of product release dates and pricing, I could almost see a startup doing this on their own. You buy Apple upgrade insurance, and they guarantee that you can trade in your current product for a new one as soon as the new product is released. The only problem is that there's way to much risk to do this unless you are Apple or have a direct relationship with Apple. Then again, maybe the float would cover the risk.
solipsist 16y ago
Sometimes Apple will release a new version of a product and disappointment will follow. People will always point out some improvements, as there always will be, but sometimes there are just less changes than what people were expecting. I think it's safe to say that the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 (the last big two releases for Apple) have been significant upgrades. Gruber agrees and so do many other analysts. Instead of feeling disappointed, I felt pleasantly surprised after the announcement - a feeling that I'm sure many other people shared. Let's just say: Apple is definitely on a roll.
- aik 16y ago
  Apple's money generating machine is on a roll for sure. There's absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't have included most of those features in the initial iPad. I agree that the smart cover is completely genius (especially as a marketing scheme - and why doesn't anyone talk about protecting the rest of the iPad now? Somehow the screen is all of a sudden the only important thing?) None of the new stuff is new technology. They're amazing at selling something that's good enough for a lot of uses and leaving a lot of space for improvement in the very near future. If they would've included cameras and the accelerometer in version 1, and perhaps made it a bit thinner, version 2 would've been significantly less interesting.
  - ryannielsen 16y ago
    > None of the new stuff is new technology. They're amazing at selling something that's good enough for a lot of uses and leaving a lot of space for improvement in the very near future. If they would've included cameras and the accelerometer in version 1, and perhaps made it a bit thinner, version 2 would've been significantly less interesting. Really? I assume that you look back on every product's new version and say, "none of this is new tech, they could have shipped it in the last version!" In almost every case, subsequent versions are driven directly by previous versions; nothing revolutionary happens. Was the dual core A5 ready for the first iPad? Was unibody aluminum manufacturing ready for the form factor and volume of iPad? Were the cameras sourced cheaply enough for the first iPad? What about 512MB RAM? Could all of this have been done in time for the first iPad? You have none of those answers, and I bet that most of them are "no." Then you have something like the Smart Covers. Those are derived directly from watching what happened with the first iPad. No great cases came out, and people wanted to protect the screen. You ask, "Somehow the screen is all of a sudden the only important thing?" Well, yes, for many people. Myself included. I refuse to use any case, because most prevent easy docking, add bulk and are a pain. But every time I travel with my iPad, I am careful to stick it in a bag such that the screen is protected.
bryanh 16y ago
I guess I'm in the minority, but I still have a hard time taking an iPad and getting the function I want out of a tablet. At this time and for me, it is still more or less an extra toy that I can overlook. However, I understand how well it fits the bill for casual consumption, and considering how Apple is effectively building a robust platform for content delivery. It seems that an iPad in every house would pay dividends for years to come.
- wisty 16y ago
  I think the world is moving towards micropayments. Not 10 cents an article, that's too low to overcome psychological barriers at the moment, but a few dollars for an app or a tune, or maybe a short subscription. Hardware sales will still be important (a $1100 computer with 30% margins every 3 years brings in $100 a year), but it won't be long before the content is making more than the hardware.
  - _frog 16y ago
    I think at the moment the amount you have to pay for music through iTunes or Amazon's MP3 download service isn't attractive enough to the average users. In the long term as publishers warm to the idea of selling their music digitally these prices will drop—in the short term though, services like Pandora and Spotify will be far more popular.
- barrkel 16y ago
  My iPad is totally a toy; it is almost entirely unused unless I have a long flight to take, or I want to watch a movie in bed - in which case I'll probably still use a laptop owing to the PITA getting content on the iPad over the air is, and its limited repertoire of format support.
  - cstuder 16y ago
    Don't use iTunes for that. StreamToMe and AirVideo both convert and stream basically anything. (As far as I know, StreamToMe uses ffmpeg internally to make the conversion on the fly.) I don't even bother with syncing video content anymore.
Slimy 16y ago
I want Gruber to, just once, say something bad about Apple without immediately giving 10 reasons why the poor move was actually brilliant. He's a good writer, but I mean, come on.
- smackfu 16y ago
  He doesn't even mention the camera quality, which are getting panned in other reviews.
  - Anechoic 16y ago
    He does in an earlier post: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/08/ipad-2-camera http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/08/ipad-2-camera
- ugh 16y ago
  Could you quote where in the review he is doing that? His review sound very, very similar to all the other reviews out there.
- ubernostrum 16y ago
  Look up his articles on App Store policies. He's been a pretty vocal critic.
  - mike463 16y ago
    He seemed to be an apologist for the new app store policies on selling outside the store. http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent To me it seems like apple is implementing not only a tax on all apps that run on the device, which has been there from the start and is ok. As a customer I like the fact that the apps are centralized and under quality and security control. But the new move seems to be a tax on ALL MEDIA played on or loaded on the device. I don't want apple to control the data I load on my device, and this is what they're doing.
    - 16y ago
smackfu 16y ago
I'm surprised it took this long for Apple to start giving Gruber review hardware and event invitations.
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
dr_ 16y ago
At it's price point, the iPad 2 is almost impossible to beat. I'm not even sure why other tablet makers try, at least in this size range. Apple doesn't, as of yet, make a smaller tablet, and that's where the competitors should focus. Like a B&N Android Nook 7" tablet for $199, wifi only - and this is probably totally feasible on their part. But if you are trying to compete with 10" devices against the iPad, forget it.
- bruceboughton 16y ago
  If it's impossible to beat Apple on price at 10", what makes you think they will be able to beat Apple at 7", which should be cheaper? Apple is winning because they defined the genre, giving them a 2-3 year head start.
stiff 16y ago
I have long found the rave about smart covers a bit ridiculous considering what a very minor addition they are, but this description is just funny to me: "Just get the hinge vaguely in the vicinity of the left edge of the iPad and it acts like a robot that knows how to (and wants to) connect itself." Has the guy that wrote this never seen a magnet before or what?
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  I got a similar vibe from the comment about games designed for the iPad 1 running well on the iPad 1. It's a bit of a Procrustean bed since if it was too much for the iPad 1 then obviously they'd cut stuff and reduce detail till it wasn't.
- akent 16y ago
  If you're someone seriously considering upgrading a device you paid upwards of $500 for less than a year ago ... because of a new CASE... sit down, get a large mirror and take a good long hard look at yourself.
  - jrockway 16y ago
    $500 is the new $20.
    - cycojesus 16y ago
      $500 was my monthly salary when I had a job. Today I wish I had $20, I'd eat for a week with that. I think I fucked up something somewhere...
ek 16y ago
Hold on. Gruber says that videos from the iTunes Store require less CPU to decode. It strikes me that that must be patently untrue. If anything, the DRM should require the decoder to work harder. Can someone explain by what metric this might be true, and why?
- mcobrien 16y ago
  Encoding video is a complex process and the professionals who prepare movies for the iTunes store have better algorithms and will tweak options for better, smoother playback. I'm not sure about the DRM, but algorithmically it's probably a lot simpler than h.264 video.
- kylec 16y ago
  It's possible that the iPad GPU doesn't support all the operations Handbrake encodes and has to have the CPU decode them (resulting in higher CPU and increased power usage), whereas the media in the iTunes Store might have been encoded with only the operations supported by the GPU. This is just a theory, however it's certainly plausible.
- ZeroGravitas 16y ago
  The DRM doesn't make the decode harder. The files used less CPU/GPU power because they weren't as well compressed. They probably weren't as well compressed because they're intended to work on the older iDevices too which couldn't handle something tuned specifically for the iPad or, even more so, the iPad2.
jwarzech 16y ago
The first thing when I thought when seeing the Smart Covers was "this looks familiar." And then I remembered an article I read a few days prior on Apple's tablet computer history (http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-computer-history/ http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-com...) If you look starting at the 'Second Figaro Competition 1990' you will see various prototypes that have a very similar looking cover. I always find it interesting when you can see decades old influences for products.
loup-vaillant 16y ago
> Every once in a while, Apple releases something brand-new. […] These original releases tend to be minimal technically, but radical conceptually. Then, generally on an annual schedule, Apple improves them iteratively and steadily over time. Meaning, any new Apple product is designed be obsolete within a year. That doesn't feel right.
- thenduks 16y ago
  Replaced != Obsolete iPad's are still fully functional and can even still be purchased. I plan on keeping mine for at least another year.
  - loup-vaillant 16y ago
    Still. If a friend of yours buy the new IPad, yours will feel obsolete, compelling you to update far sooner than necessary. You may resist the temptation, but many won't. And you can't patch hardware (especially not Apple's). This is a Planned Obsolescence™ scheme. Not as bad as time-limited light bulbs, but still.
    - CognitiveLens 16y ago
      The analogy isn't perfect, but you could say this about any product that gets iteratively improved annually, like cars. Just because there is a new model that is intentionally better than last year's model doesn't mean it is a planned obsolescence scheme. Particularly in the technology world, almost all companies are hoping to have an improved product every year... it doesn't mean they are willfully manipulating you.
      - loup-vaillant 16y ago
        Your reasoning is sound. But a host of evidence strongly suggest they do manipulate you. There's doing better this year (lessons learned etc), and doing less than optimal now so you can do better next year. If I recall correctly, Apple did that once with the IPhone: the case had room for a camera that wasn't there in this year's model. On a different note, there is better and there is different. The design of cars, for instance, changes much faster than the underlying mechanics (engine, safety…) improve. As far as I can tell, Apple isn't too guilty of this. Their design though exquisitely shiny, is relatively stable. There's also the timing of product: most goods now are designed not to last (designers actually learn at school how important this is for their future customers). The most famous example is light bulbs. They only last 1500 to 2000 hours because the biggest vendors at the time colluded to limit their lifetimes. They got sued, but since, despite numerous patents for long-lasting light bulbs, you don't find any for sale. Apple used this strategy once with irreplaceable IPods' batteries. They eventually backed off because a consumer union sued them. Going back to the IPad, if Apple really cared about making the best product possible, they would have made the processor replaceable, and the memory extend-able, so that when they inevitably improve, customer can replace them at lower cost (both in money and in resources). Now, I'm not willing to blame Evil Corp™ right away: they just maximize profit. So, I'd rather ask what in our society generates such profit maximizers.
rradu 16y ago
The discussion of whether you should upgrade from iPad 1 to 2 just seems absurd to me. It's the epitome of a first world problem. I like my gadgets just as much as the next guy, but buying things you already have simply because they're slightly faster and slightly thinner is ridiculous.
- moblivu 16y ago
  What's more ridiculous is that they changed everything that doesn't matter. Nobody complained about the thickness, the speed or the covers. What we really wanted is an optimized-for-tablet OS experience. You know not having to quit our app, find settings, go to general to finally activate Bluetooth, or having to struggle without tabs on the web browser. The worst part is people wont even see that, they're all brainwash to Big Brother apple. ‎"The cameras are severely lacking, the screen -- while extremely high quality -- is touting last year's spec, and its operating system still has significant annoyances, like the aggravating pop-up notifications" -iPad 2 Review (Engadget)

116 points by solipsist 16y ago

>>... considering that it arrives just 11 months after the original. But it is in no way a radical or significant departure from last year’s model. I like the way he used the sentence. I think he meant, "But it is in no way a radical or significant improvement from last year's model"

rbarooah 16y ago
I doubt he meant that given that he devoted paragraph after paragraph to describing all the improvements.
melling 16y ago
I'm on the every other device plan. Technology doesn't change enough every year to justify the upgrade. Every other Apple upgrade is good, and it works out that I'm staggering the iPhone and iPad. This year the 3GS gets traded in for the 5. Next year the iPad 3.
po 16y ago
I think you're trying to make a joke about how the iPad 2 isn't any better than the first but it doesn't make sense. Any village idiot could tell you the iPad 2 is better than the original. There's not a single feature that got worse. So then the operative part is was it radical or significant? Well, Gruber's whole point is that Apple launches radical products and then slowly improves them. He even concedes that it's probably not worth upgrading for many people: Most of the 15 million original iPads sold to date do not need to be replaced by iPad 2s. That’s not a problem for Apple, nor a failure for the iPad 2. A $500-800 device should have a useful life that is longer than a year. So what exactly are you trying to say? I think this kind of analysis of Apple's process is far more interesting than the resultant products.
- Garbage 16y ago
  You got me wrong. I wasn't trying to make joke out of it. I was just admiring his writing style. On a side note, I have never used an iPad and probably never will.
  - po 16y ago
    I see; I'm glad I gave you the benefit of the doubt then. It's so hard to get tone with online comments. FWIW, I think the idea of it not being a departure is significant. He's saying that they are sticking to the core themes that motivated the iPad. Sure, it's getting improved, but he's saying they got the kernel right. Look at the Apple TV by comparison. There was a significant departure from the approach of the first version to the current version. You can very easily make the argument that the main theme/motivation of the Apple TV still hasn't quite gelled. The fact that Apple doesn't put their full weight behind pushing it means they probably know they haven't gotten it nailed down quite yet. … and getting it nailed down is a business problem more than a technical one.
wtallis 16y ago
I took that sentence as meaning that the iPad 2 as a whole isn't a redesign, and that the user-visible changes were only to things that needed changing: speed, weight, thickness and cases, and not much else.

jakewalker 16y ago

If Gruber is right, what Apple did with the Smart Covers is really remarkable. First, they'll get an extremely high attach rate, probably north of 75% or 80%, much of which is probably pure profit. Second, it may be enough of a feature to convince some iPad 1 owners to buy an iPad 2 (and a Smart Cover). What an absolutely shrewd design that is likely to lead to hundreds of millions of dollars in revenue and profit for Apple.

staunch 16y ago
Why can't someone just make a smart cover (sans the auto-on/off?) for the iPad 1?
- solipsist 16y ago
  Apple said they built the smart cover and the iPad 2 at the same time, so there is hardware in the iPad 2 that is required for the cover to work. Primarily, the magnets needed to have the cover attach.
- po 16y ago
  The original iPad doesn't have anything on the left side for the magnets to grip onto.
- xuki 16y ago
  You need the built-in magnet inside the ipad 2.
  - fluidcruft 16y ago
    Why can't you use adhesive magnetic strips/tape on the outside of the iPad 1? Sure, it may be slightly unsightly, but it should be completely workable. Heck, the strip doesn't even have to be magnetic, it can be paramagnetic or such and just channel field between magnets on the cover hinge.
    - deleted 16y ago
      [deleted]

ugh 16y ago

HN hates Gruber with a passion but votes his review all the way to the top. Beats me. Here are other reviews but they all sound pretty much like Gruber’s: http://www.macworld.com/article/158439/2011/03/ipad2.html http://www.macworld.com/article/158439/2011/03/ipad2.html http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/ http://www.engadget.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/ http://techcrunch.com/2011/03/09/ipad-2-review/

po 16y ago
Hacker News doesn't hate John Gruber. Gruber polarizes Hacker News, just like Apple does.
- podperson 16y ago
  I think right now Apple (and Google) can polarize individuals. I can love each one minute and hate each the next -- they're both capable of delighting and infuriating in equal measure, even within a single product. (Love Chrome, hate the anti-h264 move. Love iOS, hate the App Store approval process and the kludgy mess of certificates.) And both are getting scary powerful.
  - redthrowaway 16y ago
    What's wrong with anti-h.264? Firefox was never going to support it, nor was Opera, so as a web developer you would have had to implement something else anyway, likely flash. Now you implement WebM instead of h.264, and you still have to implement flash because 20% of the people out there are still using ie6 and 7/8 aren't a whole lot better on this front. Basically, you're replacing a closed codec with an open one. MS and Apple will put WebM in IE and Safari if there's sufficient adoption, as it doesn't cost them anything to do so. You may not care about open codecs that aren't laden with patents, but I can't see how this makes things worse. All of the kvetching about this move extending Flash's lifetime is pointless given the fact it wasn't going anywhere anyway.
- mbreese 16y ago
  More importantly: polarization tends to fuel good discussion. The Gruber pieces that tend to get picked up here involve big Apple stories: new hardware, OS X, and developer policies. And on those, everyone has an opinion.

aashpak1 16y ago

May be a bit off topic but I think, With new superior models coming every year, time for Apple to do some innovation in the business-model (well, in addition to the app-ecosystem they created) and move to a subscription-based model :) One pays few grands (say $2k) every year to upgrade i/pod/phone/pad to the latest version. (well, they have recycling program with 90% depreciation!!)

gojomo 16y ago
A sort of Apple Prime?
Stormbringer 16y ago
You may remember that Microsoft wanted to move to an annual subscription model for Windows. I distinctly remember Balmer rubbing his hands together and cackling with glee about how they were going to make much more money that way (as he pushed another couple of nosy kids into the oven of his gingerbread house). As it turned out, this made an enormous amount of people unhappy. I think they abandoned it. Apple does have an annual subscription service, MobileMe (or whatever they are calling it this week). As far as I can tell it has had a very low rate of adoption, despite coming free (for a limited time) with new Macs. Heck, I have a hard enough time convincing random (Mac using) strangers to buy a damn external drive and turn on Time Machine. Don't underestimate user inertia.
naner 16y ago
Best Buy has some kind of buyback program. I don't know anything about it (like if it applies to Apple products) but they are advertising it.
WillyF 16y ago
Best Buy is kind of doing this with their "buy back" program. If Apple continues becoming more and more predictable in terms of product release dates and pricing, I could almost see a startup doing this on their own. You buy Apple upgrade insurance, and they guarantee that you can trade in your current product for a new one as soon as the new product is released. The only problem is that there's way to much risk to do this unless you are Apple or have a direct relationship with Apple. Then again, maybe the float would cover the risk.

solipsist 16y ago

Sometimes Apple will release a new version of a product and disappointment will follow. People will always point out some improvements, as there always will be, but sometimes there are just less changes than what people were expecting. I think it's safe to say that the iPhone 4 and iPad 2 (the last big two releases for Apple) have been significant upgrades. Gruber agrees and so do many other analysts. Instead of feeling disappointed, I felt pleasantly surprised after the announcement - a feeling that I'm sure many other people shared. Let's just say: Apple is definitely on a roll.

aik 16y ago
Apple's money generating machine is on a roll for sure. There's absolutely no reason why Apple couldn't have included most of those features in the initial iPad. I agree that the smart cover is completely genius (especially as a marketing scheme - and why doesn't anyone talk about protecting the rest of the iPad now? Somehow the screen is all of a sudden the only important thing?) None of the new stuff is new technology. They're amazing at selling something that's good enough for a lot of uses and leaving a lot of space for improvement in the very near future. If they would've included cameras and the accelerometer in version 1, and perhaps made it a bit thinner, version 2 would've been significantly less interesting.
- ryannielsen 16y ago
  > None of the new stuff is new technology. They're amazing at selling something that's good enough for a lot of uses and leaving a lot of space for improvement in the very near future. If they would've included cameras and the accelerometer in version 1, and perhaps made it a bit thinner, version 2 would've been significantly less interesting. Really? I assume that you look back on every product's new version and say, "none of this is new tech, they could have shipped it in the last version!" In almost every case, subsequent versions are driven directly by previous versions; nothing revolutionary happens. Was the dual core A5 ready for the first iPad? Was unibody aluminum manufacturing ready for the form factor and volume of iPad? Were the cameras sourced cheaply enough for the first iPad? What about 512MB RAM? Could all of this have been done in time for the first iPad? You have none of those answers, and I bet that most of them are "no." Then you have something like the Smart Covers. Those are derived directly from watching what happened with the first iPad. No great cases came out, and people wanted to protect the screen. You ask, "Somehow the screen is all of a sudden the only important thing?" Well, yes, for many people. Myself included. I refuse to use any case, because most prevent easy docking, add bulk and are a pain. But every time I travel with my iPad, I am careful to stick it in a bag such that the screen is protected.

bryanh 16y ago

I guess I'm in the minority, but I still have a hard time taking an iPad and getting the function I want out of a tablet. At this time and for me, it is still more or less an extra toy that I can overlook. However, I understand how well it fits the bill for casual consumption, and considering how Apple is effectively building a robust platform for content delivery. It seems that an iPad in every house would pay dividends for years to come.

wisty 16y ago
I think the world is moving towards micropayments. Not 10 cents an article, that's too low to overcome psychological barriers at the moment, but a few dollars for an app or a tune, or maybe a short subscription. Hardware sales will still be important (a $1100 computer with 30% margins every 3 years brings in $100 a year), but it won't be long before the content is making more than the hardware.
- _frog 16y ago
  I think at the moment the amount you have to pay for music through iTunes or Amazon's MP3 download service isn't attractive enough to the average users. In the long term as publishers warm to the idea of selling their music digitally these prices will drop—in the short term though, services like Pandora and Spotify will be far more popular.
barrkel 16y ago
My iPad is totally a toy; it is almost entirely unused unless I have a long flight to take, or I want to watch a movie in bed - in which case I'll probably still use a laptop owing to the PITA getting content on the iPad over the air is, and its limited repertoire of format support.
- cstuder 16y ago
  Don't use iTunes for that. StreamToMe and AirVideo both convert and stream basically anything. (As far as I know, StreamToMe uses ffmpeg internally to make the conversion on the fly.) I don't even bother with syncing video content anymore.

Slimy 16y ago

I want Gruber to, just once, say something bad about Apple without immediately giving 10 reasons why the poor move was actually brilliant. He's a good writer, but I mean, come on.

smackfu 16y ago
He doesn't even mention the camera quality, which are getting panned in other reviews.
- Anechoic 16y ago
  He does in an earlier post: http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/08/ipad-2-camera http://daringfireball.net/linked/2011/03/08/ipad-2-camera
ugh 16y ago
Could you quote where in the review he is doing that? His review sound very, very similar to all the other reviews out there.
ubernostrum 16y ago
Look up his articles on App Store policies. He's been a pretty vocal critic.
- mike463 16y ago
  He seemed to be an apologist for the new app store policies on selling outside the store. http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent http://daringfireball.net/2011/03/dirty_percent To me it seems like apple is implementing not only a tax on all apps that run on the device, which has been there from the start and is ok. As a customer I like the fact that the apps are centralized and under quality and security control. But the new move seems to be a tax on ALL MEDIA played on or loaded on the device. I don't want apple to control the data I load on my device, and this is what they're doing.
  - 16y ago

smackfu 16y ago

I'm surprised it took this long for Apple to start giving Gruber review hardware and event invitations.

deleted 16y ago
[deleted]

dr_ 16y ago

At it's price point, the iPad 2 is almost impossible to beat. I'm not even sure why other tablet makers try, at least in this size range. Apple doesn't, as of yet, make a smaller tablet, and that's where the competitors should focus. Like a B&N Android Nook 7" tablet for $199, wifi only - and this is probably totally feasible on their part. But if you are trying to compete with 10" devices against the iPad, forget it.

bruceboughton 16y ago
If it's impossible to beat Apple on price at 10", what makes you think they will be able to beat Apple at 7", which should be cheaper? Apple is winning because they defined the genre, giving them a 2-3 year head start.

stiff 16y ago

I have long found the rave about smart covers a bit ridiculous considering what a very minor addition they are, but this description is just funny to me: "Just get the hinge vaguely in the vicinity of the left edge of the iPad and it acts like a robot that knows how to (and wants to) connect itself." Has the guy that wrote this never seen a magnet before or what?

ZeroGravitas 16y ago
I got a similar vibe from the comment about games designed for the iPad 1 running well on the iPad 1. It's a bit of a Procrustean bed since if it was too much for the iPad 1 then obviously they'd cut stuff and reduce detail till it wasn't.
akent 16y ago
If you're someone seriously considering upgrading a device you paid upwards of $500 for less than a year ago ... because of a new CASE... sit down, get a large mirror and take a good long hard look at yourself.
- jrockway 16y ago
  $500 is the new $20.
  - cycojesus 16y ago
    $500 was my monthly salary when I had a job. Today I wish I had $20, I'd eat for a week with that. I think I fucked up something somewhere...

ek 16y ago

Hold on. Gruber says that videos from the iTunes Store require less CPU to decode. It strikes me that that must be patently untrue. If anything, the DRM should require the decoder to work harder. Can someone explain by what metric this might be true, and why?

mcobrien 16y ago
Encoding video is a complex process and the professionals who prepare movies for the iTunes store have better algorithms and will tweak options for better, smoother playback. I'm not sure about the DRM, but algorithmically it's probably a lot simpler than h.264 video.
kylec 16y ago
It's possible that the iPad GPU doesn't support all the operations Handbrake encodes and has to have the CPU decode them (resulting in higher CPU and increased power usage), whereas the media in the iTunes Store might have been encoded with only the operations supported by the GPU. This is just a theory, however it's certainly plausible.
ZeroGravitas 16y ago
The DRM doesn't make the decode harder. The files used less CPU/GPU power because they weren't as well compressed. They probably weren't as well compressed because they're intended to work on the older iDevices too which couldn't handle something tuned specifically for the iPad or, even more so, the iPad2.

jwarzech 16y ago

The first thing when I thought when seeing the Smart Covers was "this looks familiar." And then I remembered an article I read a few days prior on Apple's tablet computer history (http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-computer-history/ http://liquidpubs.com/blog/2010/11/08/apple-their-tablet-com...) If you look starting at the 'Second Figaro Competition 1990' you will see various prototypes that have a very similar looking cover. I always find it interesting when you can see decades old influences for products.

loup-vaillant 16y ago

> Every once in a while, Apple releases something brand-new. […] These original releases tend to be minimal technically, but radical conceptually. Then, generally on an annual schedule, Apple improves them iteratively and steadily over time. Meaning, any new Apple product is designed be obsolete within a year. That doesn't feel right.

thenduks 16y ago
Replaced != Obsolete iPad's are still fully functional and can even still be purchased. I plan on keeping mine for at least another year.
- loup-vaillant 16y ago
  Still. If a friend of yours buy the new IPad, yours will feel obsolete, compelling you to update far sooner than necessary. You may resist the temptation, but many won't. And you can't patch hardware (especially not Apple's). This is a Planned Obsolescence™ scheme. Not as bad as time-limited light bulbs, but still.
  - CognitiveLens 16y ago
    The analogy isn't perfect, but you could say this about any product that gets iteratively improved annually, like cars. Just because there is a new model that is intentionally better than last year's model doesn't mean it is a planned obsolescence scheme. Particularly in the technology world, almost all companies are hoping to have an improved product every year... it doesn't mean they are willfully manipulating you.
    - loup-vaillant 16y ago
      Your reasoning is sound. But a host of evidence strongly suggest they do manipulate you. There's doing better this year (lessons learned etc), and doing less than optimal now so you can do better next year. If I recall correctly, Apple did that once with the IPhone: the case had room for a camera that wasn't there in this year's model. On a different note, there is better and there is different. The design of cars, for instance, changes much faster than the underlying mechanics (engine, safety…) improve. As far as I can tell, Apple isn't too guilty of this. Their design though exquisitely shiny, is relatively stable. There's also the timing of product: most goods now are designed not to last (designers actually learn at school how important this is for their future customers). The most famous example is light bulbs. They only last 1500 to 2000 hours because the biggest vendors at the time colluded to limit their lifetimes. They got sued, but since, despite numerous patents for long-lasting light bulbs, you don't find any for sale. Apple used this strategy once with irreplaceable IPods' batteries. They eventually backed off because a consumer union sued them. Going back to the IPad, if Apple really cared about making the best product possible, they would have made the processor replaceable, and the memory extend-able, so that when they inevitably improve, customer can replace them at lower cost (both in money and in resources). Now, I'm not willing to blame Evil Corp™ right away: they just maximize profit. So, I'd rather ask what in our society generates such profit maximizers.

rradu 16y ago

The discussion of whether you should upgrade from iPad 1 to 2 just seems absurd to me. It's the epitome of a first world problem. I like my gadgets just as much as the next guy, but buying things you already have simply because they're slightly faster and slightly thinner is ridiculous.

moblivu 16y ago
What's more ridiculous is that they changed everything that doesn't matter. Nobody complained about the thickness, the speed or the covers. What we really wanted is an optimized-for-tablet OS experience. You know not having to quit our app, find settings, go to general to finally activate Bluetooth, or having to struggle without tabs on the web browser. The worst part is people wont even see that, they're all brainwash to Big Brother apple. ‎"The cameras are severely lacking, the screen -- while extremely high quality -- is touting last year's spec, and its operating system still has significant annoyances, like the aggravating pop-up notifications" -iPad 2 Review (Engadget)