5 ms·

I would actually say the iPad to iPad 2 transition was a bigger jump, but maybe just because it's so easy to forget how much bigger and bulkier the original iPa

I would actually say the iPad to iPad 2 transition was a bigger jump, but maybe just because it's so easy to forget how much bigger and bulkier the original iPad was. Are you trolling or are you simply a moron? The dimensions and weight comparison table ( right smack on the first page [1] ) shows the iPad Air is a good 181 grams lighter than the previous version, the iPad 4. The second generation iPad at 601 grams is only lighter by 79 grams over the first generation, which stood at 680 grams. [1] http://i.imgur.com/J0XIVAX.jpg http://i.imgur.com/J0XIVAX.jpg

Alterlife 13y ago
The perceived 'bulkiness' is more than just weight. Drawing from your own link, the original iPad is 13.4 mm thich, the iPad 2 is 8.8 mm. If I remember right the original iPad 1 had no front camera (or was it no cameras at all?). To me that's a huge upgrade.
- wozniacki 13y ago
  Wrong again. Considering only the dimensions, the second generation iPad managed a meager trimmings of 4 mm, 2 mm and 4.6 mm in length, width and thickness for a total of 10.6 mm. That pales in comparison to a total of 18.9 mm in combined length + width + thickness savings, in the current iPad Air. So your elusive measure of "perceived bulkiness" falls short of explaining how iPad Air is not the greatest leap in terms of portability over its previous version, over all of the other deltas of iPad generations.
  - qq66 13y ago
    The "combined length+width+height" metric you've invented is highly dubious. A 1mm reduction in a dimension means much more if it's the shortest dimension than if it's the longest.
  - dmgd 13y ago
    both manners and the concept of "volume" seem to have escaped you. using figured from ohwp's response above: iPad : 6186 cm3 iPad 2 : 3944 cm3 = saving of 2242cm3 iPad 3 : 4213 cm3 iPad 4 : 4213 cm3 iPad Air: 3060 cm3 = saving of 884cm3 (vs smallest other iPad, the iPad 2)
    - pygy_ 13y ago
      In both cases a diminution of ~30% (35 and 27, respectively).
- cmiles74 13y ago
  The original iPad (1) had no camera at all.
swombat 13y ago
Are you trolling or are you simply a moron? If you don't learn to make your point in a more civilised manner, you'll end up hellbanned...

Alterlife 13y ago

The perceived 'bulkiness' is more than just weight. Drawing from your own link, the original iPad is 13.4 mm thich, the iPad 2 is 8.8 mm. If I remember right the original iPad 1 had no front camera (or was it no cameras at all?). To me that's a huge upgrade.

wozniacki 13y ago
Wrong again. Considering only the dimensions, the second generation iPad managed a meager trimmings of 4 mm, 2 mm and 4.6 mm in length, width and thickness for a total of 10.6 mm. That pales in comparison to a total of 18.9 mm in combined length + width + thickness savings, in the current iPad Air. So your elusive measure of "perceived bulkiness" falls short of explaining how iPad Air is not the greatest leap in terms of portability over its previous version, over all of the other deltas of iPad generations.
- qq66 13y ago
  The "combined length+width+height" metric you've invented is highly dubious. A 1mm reduction in a dimension means much more if it's the shortest dimension than if it's the longest.
- dmgd 13y ago
  both manners and the concept of "volume" seem to have escaped you. using figured from ohwp's response above: iPad : 6186 cm3 iPad 2 : 3944 cm3 = saving of 2242cm3 iPad 3 : 4213 cm3 iPad 4 : 4213 cm3 iPad Air: 3060 cm3 = saving of 884cm3 (vs smallest other iPad, the iPad 2)
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    In both cases a diminution of ~30% (35 and 27, respectively).
cmiles74 13y ago
The original iPad (1) had no camera at all.

swombat 13y ago

Are you trolling or are you simply a moron? If you don't learn to make your point in a more civilised manner, you'll end up hellbanned...