2 ms·
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
by 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 agoYou 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 agoI 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.