4 ms·
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 t
by 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 agoWrong 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 agoThe "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 agoboth 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 agoIn both cases a diminution of ~30% (35 and 27, respectively).
- cmiles74 13y agoThe original iPad (1) had no camera at all.