4 ms·
I think we see this "disappointing" talk from many of the old-timers because they've spent 25 years writing about specs and that's the lens they use to look at
by martingordon 15y ago
I think we see this "disappointing" talk from many of the old-timers because they've spent 25 years writing about specs and that's the lens they use to look at the iPad. "It's not getting a quad-core processor? Android tablets have quad-core chips. How disappointing."
They don't care that Apple and third parties ship software that utilizes both cores (iMovie, GarageBand) and that hardly anyone ships Android software that utilizes more than one core, much less all four. They don't care that Apple may have tweaked last year's dual-core chip to get better performance and better battery life. According to them, since 2=2 and 2 < 4, the iPad 2 is a lackluster upgrade and is empirically worse than an Android tablet.
Meanwhile, 50 million people could care less what's inside an iPad. All that matters is that the hardware and software work well enough for what they want to do.
- protomyth 15y agoI think it goes beyond that. It is harder to write a review when you cannot just write one paragraph about each line of the tech specs. Writing about how the new design works is harder and requires some thought. The standard cookie cutter PC review doesn't work. I wish I still had the link, but I remember a review for a Dell laptop that was a poor cut-and-paste job of the HP they reviewed a week before. They missed some pastes.
- kiloaper 15y ago>Meanwhile, 50 million people could care less what's inside an iPad. I assume you mean 'couldn't care less'. [1] [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw
- martingordon 15y agoUgh, I always find myself correcting people on that and I hate myself for letting it slip through.