Apple releases Ipad 3(apple.com)
apple.com
Apple releases Ipad 3
http://www.apple.com/ipad/?r=3
345 comments
Welp, this does it for me. As soon as i can get a completely carrier unlocked iPad in the bay area, I'm going to switch from my laptop (x61t) to this new iPad plus a dock and a BT keyboard and mouse. All I really need is an ssh/X-window server app, and I can run all my programs on my server or desktop.
1) It's spelled iPad.
2) It's not officially called iPad 3, just 'the new iPad'.
I'm still somewhat amazed they haven't found a better way to handle updating the store. I understand that there is a marketing aspect to taking it offline, but it should be back online and updated immediately after the event is over.
I'm not so sure it's all marketing. Apple is the most inflexible, arcane company imaginable when it comes to web software. They're still using a legacy technology (WebObjects w/ Java) that died many years ago, and everything I've heard about their web team make it sound like their're stuck in technological legacy handcuffs.
It was briefly online after the event, but it was hammered with requests, so they've shut it down again. Maybe they're just throttling the traffic so not anyone can get it, or maybe they took it down completely to do some magic to better handle all the traffic.
I think it IS all just marketing...Im sure a company that size can update a product on a website without going offline if they really wanted to
I think that's reading a bit too much into it. The product has been announced, having the store down now does nothing to promote it (as having it down during the announcement might), it only prevents people from buying it.
Although the HN title (currently) says "Ipad 3", Apple seems to actually be calling it the new "iPad" (edit: "new iPad", not "New iPad"). It's a bit confusing: next year, is it then the "old iPad"?
But, we don't really have that issue with many other Apple products (iPod nano, all Macs, etc) that use the same naming scheme. So we'll see how bad it actually ends up.
But, we don't really have that issue with many other Apple products (iPod nano, all Macs, etc) that use the same naming scheme. So we'll see how bad it actually ends up.
I think it's just called the iPad. Right now it's new, so they're referring to it as the "new iPad".
This naming convention is simpler that appending a hardware version number to the name at each refresh. Also, it's what Apple currently does with most of their other product lines. It's the MacBook Pro, not the MacBook Pro 3. The iPods were always called just that, an iPod. People referred to them as the nth generation iPod, but Apple labeled them iPods. Easy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this naming convention spreads the iPhone.
This naming convention is simpler that appending a hardware version number to the name at each refresh. Also, it's what Apple currently does with most of their other product lines. It's the MacBook Pro, not the MacBook Pro 3. The iPods were always called just that, an iPod. People referred to them as the nth generation iPod, but Apple labeled them iPods. Easy.
I wouldn't be surprised if this naming convention spreads the iPhone.
>I wouldn't be surprised if this naming convention spreads the iPhone.
This naming convention would be especially convenient for the iPhone. The next one would be the sixth generation but it could confuse people if they call it 'iPhone 6' since there was never an iPhone with a '5' in its name.
For reference, here are the previous iPhone names:
1. iPhone
2. iPhone 3G
3. iPhone 3GS
4. iPhone 4
5. iPhone 4S
This naming convention would be especially convenient for the iPhone. The next one would be the sixth generation but it could confuse people if they call it 'iPhone 6' since there was never an iPhone with a '5' in its name.
For reference, here are the previous iPhone names:
1. iPhone
2. iPhone 3G
3. iPhone 3GS
4. iPhone 4
5. iPhone 4S
Macbooks are versioned. The versions people refer to are 'mid 2007', 'late 2008', etc.
iPods are also versioned. People refer to their '4G iPod shuffle' or their '2G iPod touch'
iPods are also versioned. People refer to their '4G iPod shuffle' or their '2G iPod touch'
Right, customers call them that, but Apple calls their products iPods and MacBooks when they are selling them. The names are simply "iPod", etc. The hardware revision number is only used when need to disambiguate.
But that's not the actual product name, as used by Apple publicly.
And as another example: http://support.apple.com/manuals/#ipodnano
I think this is one way Apple brings their marketing in line with how average consumers think. Most non-gadget people don't know the difference between the iPhone 4, 4S, and 3GS , other than price. They assume the more expensive one is better and does more stuff. But model numbers (even if it's just a single number) are not the way most consumers think.
Similarly, the iPhone 4S simply says "iPhone" on the back and is not easily differentiated from the original iPhone 4.
Similarly, the iPhone 4S simply says "iPhone" on the back and is not easily differentiated from the original iPhone 4.
I'm not sure , sticking numbers after something is a fairly universal thing. Movies, video games and most software has been doing this for a while.
The farther away from this Samsung Galaxy S II Epic 4G Touch nonsense, the happier I'll be.
I think the reason people misattribute Apple's success to marketing is because everyone else's marketing is just godawful.
And no, I didn't make that name up.
I think the reason people misattribute Apple's success to marketing is because everyone else's marketing is just godawful.
And no, I didn't make that name up.
I can believe it , most laptops have names that are pretty much impossible to remember which in turn makes it very difficult to recommend a specific model to anybody not to mention uninspiring.
Not that recommending a "15 inch Macbook Pro 2.4 GHz with a 2.5 GHz CPU, a 256GB Solid State Drive, and the Hi-Res Antiglare Widescreen Display" is particularly straightforward or inspiring.
At least I know what that is. Ever try to dig up the tech specs of a discontinued 90s-era laptop from just its model number?
Apple has unique model number codes for all their products, but they try very hard to hide it in the logistics department. It's not listed anywhere on their online store, for instance, and in Apple Support documents they always use a consistent date system, e.g. "late 2011 Macbook Pro."
Also, you could have shortened that to: 15" MacBook Pro with the best CPU, 256GB SSD, and antiglare screen. 66 characters vs. 118. ;)
Apple has unique model number codes for all their products, but they try very hard to hide it in the logistics department. It's not listed anywhere on their online store, for instance, and in Apple Support documents they always use a consistent date system, e.g. "late 2011 Macbook Pro."
Also, you could have shortened that to: 15" MacBook Pro with the best CPU, 256GB SSD, and antiglare screen. 66 characters vs. 118. ;)
Not only that, looking at the HP order page, there doesn't seem to be much difference between them all.
Ha! I used the same example in an earlier thread
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3631578
Yes it is, but people only understand model numbers if it's something they take a deep interest in. I'm into smart phones and computers so I know how the naming conventions work. But, I don't know or care about the naming conventions for things like TV's, sports stats, cars, etc. Example; I've been looking for a new car recently and I find the model naming conventions confusing. I just want 6 seats, reliability, reasonable overtaking performance, reasonable fuel economy. I don't give a crap about most of the other stuff and I'm annoyed at having to learn it all so I can chose which car to buy.
I bet they were pissed after people were disappointed that they only got an iPhone 4S and no iPhone 5. Plus at some point you have to stop numbering. iPhone 23 doesn’t sound very appealing.
When you check out, it's referred to as iPad (3rd generation).
It looks like they're just calling it "iPad" now on their website. It's an interesting idea; maybe they plan on always calling the current one "iPad", and renaming the old model something like "iPad 2012" once the 2013 "iPad" is released.
The lack of a numbering scheme is a royal pain in the ass when googling bugs or trying to find pretty much any information about a specific model.
Although admittedly we already have that with most of their other devices ("do i have an early 2011 MB or was it the mid-2010?") and it's not like other vendors are much better in this regard.
Although admittedly we already have that with most of their other devices ("do i have an early 2011 MB or was it the mid-2010?") and it's not like other vendors are much better in this regard.
There is a model identifier, it's just hidden in the system profiler (Mid 2011 air is MacBookAir4,2)
I guess it helps that the iPad is on a yearly release schedule, as opposed to their Mac products.
I also think that the naming convention is gonna stick for a while.
It's what they've always done. The "iPad 2" was always officially just called the "iPad" as well. My friend won one in a raffle, and we scoured the box looking at whether it was the new "iPad 2" or not. It never mentioned the "2" anywhere, but we eventually realized from the device's shape that it was the 2.
Apples call it the "iPad 2" on their online store.
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad
(look at the bottom of the page)
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipad/family/ipad
(look at the bottom of the page)
They don't say 'MacBook Air 4', just 'MacBook Air'. I think this is to unify that naming scheme.
As people have pointed out, this is essentially how things like MacBooks work. I happen to know I have a “mid-2010” MacBook, but that isn’t printed on it anywhere and the average user would never know. It’s not a MacBook 7S or whatever.
I wonder if this will reduce complaints about "planned obsolescence".
When you check out, it's labeled "iPad (3d generation)".
Apparently it's just "iPad". Not 3, not HD. Maybe people will always call it the iPad 3 or maybe we'll end up calling it the 2012 iPad or the 3rd gen or something.
In one of the videos they mentioned it as the "third generation." Seems like they're just asking for confusion though.
Seems to have worked ok with the iPod ("generation") and their PC line (generally referenced by year of refresh). A bit confusing now when they're doing the transition from "2" to numberless which the first one was but in the long run it will pay off. I suppose they'll just keep calling it "new" to differentiate.
Makes sense. It's not like we call the Macbook, Macbook Pro, or iPod by version numbers. Instead, at least browsing on Craiglist, it's usually by years (for laptops) and generations (for iPods)
[deleted]
It's 'the new iPad', not the iPad 3. Apple is evidently going to follow the same pattern as it does with its computers and is doing away with a sequential numbering system.
So the next iPad will also just be 'the new iPad' the same way that every year we see 'the new MacBook Pro'. The iPhone will probably follow suit.
So the next iPad will also just be 'the new iPad' the same way that every year we see 'the new MacBook Pro'. The iPhone will probably follow suit.
Apple is following the pattern that begun with the failure of the Apple III computer, which is to not name any more products "3". There was no Mac 3, iPod 3, or iPhone 3.
Does this not include an update to iOS?
Yep, iOS 5.1 is out today as well.
It should be noted that the limited data plans for both AT&T and Verizon mean that at the max 4G speed of 73 Mbps, you could use all your bandwidth for the entire month in less than three and a half minutes (2 GB plan).
The overages of $10/GB per month on both services mean once you go over your plan, you'll be looking at a little over $5/minute in new charges.
It is possible (though highly unlikely) to rack up over $200K/month in bandwidth charges if you managed to find an empty 4G cell for a month.
Sadly Sprint, which has unlimited 4G last i checked, was absent from the release of the new iPad.
The overages of $10/GB per month on both services mean once you go over your plan, you'll be looking at a little over $5/minute in new charges.
It is possible (though highly unlikely) to rack up over $200K/month in bandwidth charges if you managed to find an empty 4G cell for a month.
Sadly Sprint, which has unlimited 4G last i checked, was absent from the release of the new iPad.
I'm disappointed the "top" comment on this announcement is nothing more than a sideways swipe at an unrelated topic from someone who clearly has an axe to grind.
In Australia, the ACCC banned the use of the word "unlimited" (with respect to Internet access, wireless or fixed-line) unless it truly was unlimited. No shaping, hard or soft quotas, excess usage charges and vague "fair use" provisions. The result? You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. If you pay for 1TB/month on an ADSL line you're absolutely going to get it.
The real problem here is a combination of false advertising and people with completely unrealistic expectations. Not everyone can use 73Mbps all the time. There simply isn't the bandwidth for it. If you want to download 100GB+/month you should absolutely be paying more than someone who only downloads 2GB/month.
Back to the "new iPad" (why not iPad 3? Seriously!), i'm excited about it. Having it be able to do 1080p is great, although I think it's high time they up the flash storage at this point. 64GB doesn't go that far at Full HD.
The RAM, CPU and memory upgrades make this a pretty serious device now. The release of iPhoto is probably going to be unfortunately for many photo app makers (and hopefully it'll mean an end to Photoshop Touch's ridiculous 1600x1600 limit).
Apple just continues to cement their complete dominance against, well, everyone in the tablet space.
In Australia, the ACCC banned the use of the word "unlimited" (with respect to Internet access, wireless or fixed-line) unless it truly was unlimited. No shaping, hard or soft quotas, excess usage charges and vague "fair use" provisions. The result? You get what you pay for and you pay for what you get. If you pay for 1TB/month on an ADSL line you're absolutely going to get it.
The real problem here is a combination of false advertising and people with completely unrealistic expectations. Not everyone can use 73Mbps all the time. There simply isn't the bandwidth for it. If you want to download 100GB+/month you should absolutely be paying more than someone who only downloads 2GB/month.
Back to the "new iPad" (why not iPad 3? Seriously!), i'm excited about it. Having it be able to do 1080p is great, although I think it's high time they up the flash storage at this point. 64GB doesn't go that far at Full HD.
The RAM, CPU and memory upgrades make this a pretty serious device now. The release of iPhoto is probably going to be unfortunately for many photo app makers (and hopefully it'll mean an end to Photoshop Touch's ridiculous 1600x1600 limit).
Apple just continues to cement their complete dominance against, well, everyone in the tablet space.
> "Having it be able to do 1080p is great"
The resolution is kind of awkward for moving watching no? There's no 1:1 mapping of source pixel to hardware pixel, so you're going to get some filtering regardless. But, a step up regardless. The current iPad screen is downright painful to look at once you've been spoiled by high-DPI screens.
> "although I think it's high time they up the flash storage at this point. 64GB doesn't go that far at Full HD."
I actually don't think this is a big issue. It would seem to me that Apple is moving slowly towards the Amazon model - cloud-based content provision of everything. It used to be that you'd have to download giant files to a "mothership" computer, then pipe it over USB to your mobile device, but with iCloud and now downloading your movies over the air, this seems positively archaic.
The resolution is kind of awkward for moving watching no? There's no 1:1 mapping of source pixel to hardware pixel, so you're going to get some filtering regardless. But, a step up regardless. The current iPad screen is downright painful to look at once you've been spoiled by high-DPI screens.
> "although I think it's high time they up the flash storage at this point. 64GB doesn't go that far at Full HD."
I actually don't think this is a big issue. It would seem to me that Apple is moving slowly towards the Amazon model - cloud-based content provision of everything. It used to be that you'd have to download giant files to a "mothership" computer, then pipe it over USB to your mobile device, but with iCloud and now downloading your movies over the air, this seems positively archaic.
"why not iPad 3? Seriously!"
The video shown at the end of the announcement event has an Apple employee referring to it as "the third-generation iPad".
This seems very strange to me, considering how on-message Apple has ALWAYS been in the past. It's just... sloppy.
I wonder if Apple has a future beyond its current momentum. I'll be convinced otherwise ifwhen they release another world-changing product that wasn't invented by Steve.
The video shown at the end of the announcement event has an Apple employee referring to it as "the third-generation iPad".
This seems very strange to me, considering how on-message Apple has ALWAYS been in the past. It's just... sloppy.
I wonder if Apple has a future beyond its current momentum. I'll be convinced otherwise ifwhen they release another world-changing product that wasn't invented by Steve.
Apple uses the same terminology with MacBooks and iPods. "Sixth generation iPod" etc. Apple is known to focus on details, so they probably thought this through and have a good reason to back away from the numerals.
No, the official model names of the computers have dates in them, e.g. "Late 2010", "Mid 2011", etc. I have, for example, an "iMac, 27-inch, Mid 2011".
My point is that they're not being consistent. They call it "the new iPad" in the presentation, but then the guy in the video calls it "the third-generation iPad".
My point is that they're not being consistent. They call it "the new iPad" in the presentation, but then the guy in the video calls it "the third-generation iPad".
Yeah I thought it was obvious.
Numbers are messy, it's better to have a product represented by its name and have its generation just be a property.
That's why they make the extra effort of saying "third-generation" rather than iPad3. They don't want it to be referred to as an iPad3, just as an iPad.
I was surprised they called the second one iPad2.
Numbers are messy, it's better to have a product represented by its name and have its generation just be a property.
That's why they make the extra effort of saying "third-generation" rather than iPad3. They don't want it to be referred to as an iPad3, just as an iPad.
I was surprised they called the second one iPad2.
What exact is sloppy? Third generation is one of their terms for it.
Apple hasn't historically had multiple names for a single product before. That's what I see as sloppy about it.
They have historically had products with multiple iterations all sharing the same name, and when necessary they qualify them with '3rd generation', or 'mid 2011'. Examples being the iPod, and the iMac.
They are simply moving the iPad to their established naming scheme.
They are simply moving the iPad to their established naming scheme.
Yeah, but they did the same with the iPhone as well... the iPhone 3/3GS, iPhone 4/4S.
I've not really read up a huge amount on the specs of this, just a couple of basic articles - new stuff includes higher def screen, better camera, 4G support. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary, maybe that's why they decided it doesn't need a whole new release number. Who knows.
I've not really read up a huge amount on the specs of this, just a couple of basic articles - new stuff includes higher def screen, better camera, 4G support. Evolutionary rather than revolutionary, maybe that's why they decided it doesn't need a whole new release number. Who knows.
No, they didn't. The iPhone 4's model name is "iPhone 4", same for the "iPhone 4S". This one's model name is, according to the presentation, "the new iPad". You never see Apple refer to "iPhone 4" or "iPhone 4S" as "the n-th generation iPhone".
I'm not arguing the evolutionary/revolutionary angle, just that it's completely unprecedented for Apple to use TWO DIFFERENT NAMES to refer to ONE PRODUCT in their marketing materials.
I'm not arguing the evolutionary/revolutionary angle, just that it's completely unprecedented for Apple to use TWO DIFFERENT NAMES to refer to ONE PRODUCT in their marketing materials.
Well, you could legitimately use 2GB by simply purchasing a movie that they discussed in the presentation. A 720p version of "Drive" on iTunes is 3.17GB. Soon it will be upgraded to 1080p, which would be at /least/ 5GB. That's at least $50 in data for one movie, assuming the data plans stay the same.
Apple doesn't let you download anything (apps, movies) bigger than 50mb over a cellular connection.
But once you go to 4G, that limitation just doesn't make sense any more. I know several people for whom 4G is the fastest internet connection available to them. Sure you could hack around it by setting up a wifi hotspot on a different 4G device, but still forcing them to use a slower network for larger downloads seems kind of dumb.
Heck, for me 3G is the fastest data available to me.
However, 3G (and 4G) are much more expensive, in terms of the price it costs to transmit a given quantity of data. And compared to glass and copper, the total number of bits available within a given geographic area at any given moment is a fraction as large. Unfortunately, cellular companies failed to realize that offering "unlimited" data plans would set up poor expectations. They (apparently) didn't anticipate seeing a significant percentage of their customers try to use the cellular networks for transferring large quantities of data, and thought that for most people "unlimited" would just be a marketing-friendly euphemism for "a couple hundred megabytes."
In turn, people who assumed that "unlimited" really means unlimited, and assumed that the prices that were originally offered for "unlimited" were realistic prices for high volumes of cellular network usage, now seem to think that the prices that cellular network providers want to charge for data usage are rapacious. On the contrary, it's not that the price they're trying to charge now is disastrously high; it's that the price that they used to be charging was disastrously low.
There's also a serious resource contention issue on cellular data. The towers can only be placed so close together before they start interfering with each other, and the bandwidth that's being advertised is the bandwidth you'll get if you've got the tower to yourself. Chicago's an illustrative story: A company came along offering household internet service through a 4G network, promising impressive bandwidth numbers. And they delivered on them for the few months between when they first opened for business and when they started getting serious traction in the market. Since then, they've earned a reputation as a pretty crappy ISP, simply because the technology itself couldn't deliver quality service to that many users at once. A wireless network cell is effectively a hub, and like on any hub resource contention can be a serious issue.
Which, I suspect, is ultimately why Apple goes along with the file size caps for cellular network transfers: From a user experience perspective, they would much rather allow everyone to transfer small files at high speeds, than let everyone's user experience suffer because the network is being choked by large file transfers.
However, 3G (and 4G) are much more expensive, in terms of the price it costs to transmit a given quantity of data. And compared to glass and copper, the total number of bits available within a given geographic area at any given moment is a fraction as large. Unfortunately, cellular companies failed to realize that offering "unlimited" data plans would set up poor expectations. They (apparently) didn't anticipate seeing a significant percentage of their customers try to use the cellular networks for transferring large quantities of data, and thought that for most people "unlimited" would just be a marketing-friendly euphemism for "a couple hundred megabytes."
In turn, people who assumed that "unlimited" really means unlimited, and assumed that the prices that were originally offered for "unlimited" were realistic prices for high volumes of cellular network usage, now seem to think that the prices that cellular network providers want to charge for data usage are rapacious. On the contrary, it's not that the price they're trying to charge now is disastrously high; it's that the price that they used to be charging was disastrously low.
There's also a serious resource contention issue on cellular data. The towers can only be placed so close together before they start interfering with each other, and the bandwidth that's being advertised is the bandwidth you'll get if you've got the tower to yourself. Chicago's an illustrative story: A company came along offering household internet service through a 4G network, promising impressive bandwidth numbers. And they delivered on them for the few months between when they first opened for business and when they started getting serious traction in the market. Since then, they've earned a reputation as a pretty crappy ISP, simply because the technology itself couldn't deliver quality service to that many users at once. A wireless network cell is effectively a hub, and like on any hub resource contention can be a serious issue.
Which, I suspect, is ultimately why Apple goes along with the file size caps for cellular network transfers: From a user experience perspective, they would much rather allow everyone to transfer small files at high speeds, than let everyone's user experience suffer because the network is being choked by large file transfers.
"They (apparently) didn't anticipate seeing a significant percentage of their customers try to use the cellular networks for transferring large quantities of data, and thought that for most people "unlimited" would just be a marketing-friendly euphemism for "a couple hundred megabytes.""
I wonder if many execs and marketing people at large mobile companies really didn't see this coming, as we had years of 'unlimited texts' being promoted, and an entire generation of people texting thousands of times per day. Did execs get adjusted to 'unlimited' as it applies to texting, and naively assume that 'web' usage wouldn't be significantly different?
I can't really say for sure, but that just struck me as a possibility for why many mobile execs don't seem to 'get it' with respect to mobile data.
I wonder if many execs and marketing people at large mobile companies really didn't see this coming, as we had years of 'unlimited texts' being promoted, and an entire generation of people texting thousands of times per day. Did execs get adjusted to 'unlimited' as it applies to texting, and naively assume that 'web' usage wouldn't be significantly different?
I can't really say for sure, but that just struck me as a possibility for why many mobile execs don't seem to 'get it' with respect to mobile data.
many mobile execs don't seem to 'get it' with respect to mobile data.
I'm pretty sure they 'get it' just fine, but did the math and carefully worked out exactly how shitty service they can offer at what price without making too many people cancel.
I'm pretty sure they 'get it' just fine, but did the math and carefully worked out exactly how shitty service they can offer at what price without making too many people cancel.
Yeah, that's probably close to the truth. I hate being so cynical, but it's probably reality.
> the bandwidth that's being advertised is the bandwidth you'll get if you've got the tower to yourself
not exactly, that's if you've got the sector to yourself. AFAIK one tower has at least 3-12 sectors.
That's why LTE can't replace all of our data connections (for now).
not exactly, that's if you've got the sector to yourself. AFAIK one tower has at least 3-12 sectors.
That's why LTE can't replace all of our data connections (for now).
Someone needs to do exactly this, then sue the balls off these carriers for such draconian plans and rates.
Suing the balls off of someone requires that you have "cause".
The government allows Verizon and AT&T to use the wireless spectrum with many caveats. One caveat is that they can't royally fuck their customers. This is royally fucking their customers. Hence, cause for a lawsuit is established.
"One caveat is that they can't royally fuck their customers. This is royally fucking their customers."
You can't objectively define what constitutes "royally fuck[ing]" their customers.
Just saying "this cost more than I think is reasonable as a wireless customer" means absolutely nothing in court.
You can't objectively define what constitutes "royally fuck[ing]" their customers.
Just saying "this cost more than I think is reasonable as a wireless customer" means absolutely nothing in court.
[deleted]
> One caveat is that they can't royally fuck their customers.
Clearly you do not live in America. We abandoned the concept of consumer protection decades ago.
Clearly you do not live in America. We abandoned the concept of consumer protection decades ago.
> The government allows Verizon and AT&T to use the wireless spectrum with many caveats. One caveat is that they can't royally fuck their customers. This is royally fucking their customers. Hence, cause for a lawsuit is established.
We have a saying in my country, when a child exhibits some great talent, that we also use ironically when a child does or says something very dumb.
"How can you not send this kid to college?"
I think one of the two intentions applies perfectly to the quoted comment.
We have a saying in my country, when a child exhibits some great talent, that we also use ironically when a child does or says something very dumb.
"How can you not send this kid to college?"
I think one of the two intentions applies perfectly to the quoted comment.
You need a cause to get to trial and then even more so to win. You don't need one to file the suit, get the attention, and cost them big time to address it. In America you can sue anyone at any time for anything. You don't have to win to win.
Indeed – but it might well go far in the court of public opinion... that's gotta count for something...
Go for it!
This is exactly what happened to me after I bought a MyTouch 4G which allowed wifi hotspotting for my laptop.
While I was not charged overage fees, my data rate was crippled to 57Kbps.
The thing sits in the drawer and I NEVER use it because its useless.
I am paying $100 a month for it. They want $400!!! to cancel it.
Fuck these carriers.
While I was not charged overage fees, my data rate was crippled to 57Kbps.
The thing sits in the drawer and I NEVER use it because its useless.
I am paying $100 a month for it. They want $400!!! to cancel it.
Fuck these carriers.
If you have more than 4 months left on your contract, it will be cheaper to cancel it now.
Also, check SlickDeals - there's a notice there whenever these carriers change the contract terms. In such a case, you're legally permitted to cancel the contract without paying the ETF.
You can often get them to not charge the early termination fee either by either being really deserving-seeming, or being a belligerent asshole (but you have to be consistent). At least with t-mo and sprint, never tried with ATT or VZ.
If you have free roaming, one strategy might be to connect to another carrier's tower and make long/consistent calls on it, forcing your provider to pay them more than the $100/mo that you are paying your provider.
If you don't have free roaming, a similar strategy might work with unlimited minutes on their own network if you just use enough of them that their costs are too high to support you. If you don't have unlimited minutes, you can probably upgrade your plan, use a ton, then if they try to force you to switch or pay overages, you will likely also have the option to walk away from the contract without a fee.
If you don't have free roaming, a similar strategy might work with unlimited minutes on their own network if you just use enough of them that their costs are too high to support you. If you don't have unlimited minutes, you can probably upgrade your plan, use a ton, then if they try to force you to switch or pay overages, you will likely also have the option to walk away from the contract without a fee.
I don't think in-network calls cost them much of anything. It's the connection charges to a different network that may actually cost them money.
I've also heard of people getting other carriers to buy them out of their existing contract. No idea how to approach this though.
can't you just change the credit card associated with the account, so they can't extract their monthly pound of flesh? what's the worst they can do, send it to a collections agency?
Having collections hound you daily and damaging your credit rating for the next 7 years doesn't sound bad to you?
Not really. Depends how badly you need credit, I guess. It'd actually be amusing to see how long they'd pursue a couple hundred dollars.
You sound like someone who's never dealt with a blackspot on their credit history (as an aside, never leave bills in your name when you move out, trusting your ex-housemates not to be douchebags).
It's not about not being able to borrow, it's about companies refusing to accept your business because you're a "risk", even when you offer to pay out the entire contract up front to show you're good for the money. It's a fucking pain in the ass
It's not about not being able to borrow, it's about companies refusing to accept your business because you're a "risk", even when you offer to pay out the entire contract up front to show you're good for the money. It's a fucking pain in the ass
There are three possible explanations for your comments:
1) You're a multimillionaire without aspiration, and shouldn't be giving financial advice to the rest of us non-millionaires.
2) You're a troll, or are acting like one to get yourself hellbanned for some reason.
3) Your recent spat of negative karma comments are the result of some kind of new mental health issue, and you need to see a doctor.
1) You're a multimillionaire without aspiration, and shouldn't be giving financial advice to the rest of us non-millionaires.
2) You're a troll, or are acting like one to get yourself hellbanned for some reason.
3) Your recent spat of negative karma comments are the result of some kind of new mental health issue, and you need to see a doctor.
So, in the strange little world you inhabit, only fabulously wealthy people eschew credit cards and don't spend their life worrying about their credit score? What a terrible place that must be.
And what kind of crap-ass site would ban someone for the three (out of five) comments I've made today which have been downvoted?
Pretty sure I can spot the actual troll here.
And what kind of crap-ass site would ban someone for the three (out of five) comments I've made today which have been downvoted?
Pretty sure I can spot the actual troll here.
Your credit report is pulled when you move and open new utility accounts, when you apply for cell phone service, by your landlord before renting you a home, in some types of background checks, and many other situations that have nothing to do with being extended a line of credit.
False equivalency, eschewing credit cards is different than not paying them.
If you make enough comments that are bad enough then your account is likely to be banned. If that's your goal then at some point along the way you'll be only three comments in.
(I am not remarking on the quality of your other comments; I have not read them.)
If you make enough comments that are bad enough then your account is likely to be banned. If that's your goal then at some point along the way you'll be only three comments in.
(I am not remarking on the quality of your other comments; I have not read them.)
I can think of many other explanations. For instance, someone who does not plan on living in the U.S. for the rest of his or her life could say something like that. Someone who makes what every engineer in SV makes and therefor does not need credit at all could say something like that.
Personally, I think it's a terrible idea. It's a much better plan to work together a couple decades of good borrowing history without paying much interest and then get unsecured loans totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars and cash out.
Personally, I think it's a terrible idea. It's a much better plan to work together a couple decades of good borrowing history without paying much interest and then get unsecured loans totaling hundreds of thousands of dollars and cash out.
When I see people complaining about being capped at 50kb/s speeds it makes me sad to live in New Zealand where our capped speeds are about 15kb/s at best.
I was always amused when $12/MB BGAN (L-band satellite) service was cheaper than roaming cellular data on some plans.
Actually New Zealand throttled speeds are 64kbps or 56kbps ("dial-up speed"). Network speeds are in bits per second, so you get 6-8kBps downloads.
Given the numbers, I suspect that the cap was 57(.6?) kilobits per second, not kilobytes. Same top speed as a dialup modem.
im always amazed that the developing nation i live in (we used to call it third world....) has no hidden caps or nonsenseontheir mobile, or non-mobileinternet plans, you get exactlywhat you pay for,spelled out clearly, andits steongly enforced by thecourts.
and no, there is no censorship or anything either. i dont have quite the same speeds as theus does, buti get ehat ipay for, andits cheap.
and no, there is no censorship or anything either. i dont have quite the same speeds as theus does, buti get ehat ipay for, andits cheap.
what developing nation is that? (I ask because I also live in a "developing" nation which has some of the highest per capita broadband charges in the world)
Is this phone network caps, or landline cable/DSL caps?
Home network. It may differ in larger towns like Auckland or Wellington but the city I live in is hardly small either.
They want $400 because if you cancel your contract, you get to keep the phone. You can sell it on ebay for $200.
I’m not really sure why you are angry at the carriers. Knowing about the limits and how much you need is kinda your job. I know that I need at least half a terabyte per month when I’m using my laptop and I know to always check how much bandwidth I can get from the carriers.
Your responsibility.
Your responsibility.
I think anger is justified to the degree the plan is structured to cost significantly more than a reasonable person would expect - i.e. caveat emptor should not be the approach of reputable companies.
While it is perhaps somewhat legitimate to criticize an HN'er for failing to calculate the rate at which a data plan will be consumed at a given bandwidth, it is of questionable appropriateness in regard to the general public.
While it is perhaps somewhat legitimate to criticize an HN'er for failing to calculate the rate at which a data plan will be consumed at a given bandwidth, it is of questionable appropriateness in regard to the general public.
What are your thoughts about AT&T crippling unlimited data customers going over a specified limit (iirc 3GB)?
Depends. I don’t care about it if it’s clearly stated just how much bandwidth you get. I’m not in the US but in Germany carriers will often tell you they have unlimited flatrate plans but also state that if you go above a certain bandwidth use you will be throttled to GPRS speeds. I have no problem with that. It depends on how clearly it’s communicated.
I can see how others may be misled by that marketing, though, so it’s no super great. No reason to get angry, just reason for concern. Some German carriers are much more upfront about that (they might say “1GB of data, throttled to GPRS speeds above that”) and I obviously prefer that kind of marketing. It’s less confusing and more honest.
I can see how others may be misled by that marketing, though, so it’s no super great. No reason to get angry, just reason for concern. Some German carriers are much more upfront about that (they might say “1GB of data, throttled to GPRS speeds above that”) and I obviously prefer that kind of marketing. It’s less confusing and more honest.
Data is much, much cheaper in Germany. I can get 5GB on e-plus for €15/month (~$20).
I'm pretty sure no carrier in the US offers a better deal than $10/GB.
I'm pretty sure no carrier in the US offers a better deal than $10/GB.
Well, T-Mobile prepaid has 5 GB data for $30 at their 4G speed. Also includes unlimited SMS and 100 minutes of talk. Pretty decent deal for me.
@UGH
My problem isn't about "you know what you're getting, it's clearly communicated"
My anger is because THERE IS NO FUCKING UNLIMITED PLAN AT ALL
We are on HN, I have been on the internet DAILY for 15 years now. EVERY SINGLE DAY for many hours.
As a travelling consultant, I rely heavily on mobile access to the internet.
The fact that I had an unlimited account in the past - but now that speeds are getting acceptable, they are crippling them by cost.
It is corporate greed and it is bullshit.
My problem isn't about "you know what you're getting, it's clearly communicated"
My anger is because THERE IS NO FUCKING UNLIMITED PLAN AT ALL
We are on HN, I have been on the internet DAILY for 15 years now. EVERY SINGLE DAY for many hours.
As a travelling consultant, I rely heavily on mobile access to the internet.
The fact that I had an unlimited account in the past - but now that speeds are getting acceptable, they are crippling them by cost.
It is corporate greed and it is bullshit.
Maybe they can’t give you an unlimited plan? Data is seriously expensive for the carriers.
Maybe they shouldn't force customers to take an unlimited plan in the first place if they couldn't support it. For a very long time, until you could actually use that much data, att forced us to sign 2-year contracts with unlimited data.
> Data is seriously expensive for the carriers.
That is a load of horseshit.
That is a load of horseshit.
Really? What do you know about the cost of infrastructure and its capacity?
Thank you.
Thank you.
I know enough to conclude that it hasn't gotten more expensive to ship bits in the past ten years. Yet, here we are in the US, shifting from unlimited data plans to rate-limited, capped plans, and no one seems to have come up with a convincing explanation as to why that's occurring.
It's simple:
- unlimited data plans were doled out when network operators knew full well that people couldn't actually use enough data to cause a crisis.
- Data usage spiked because people found new uses for phones which demanded more and more data (e.g. streaming shows)
- Operators found themselves underdeveloped with no prospect of demand tapering off
- At these levels, it maximizes the operator's profits to push people into rate-limited plans.
- unlimited data plans were doled out when network operators knew full well that people couldn't actually use enough data to cause a crisis.
- Data usage spiked because people found new uses for phones which demanded more and more data (e.g. streaming shows)
- Operators found themselves underdeveloped with no prospect of demand tapering off
- At these levels, it maximizes the operator's profits to push people into rate-limited plans.
Of course it has become more expensive to ship bits. More people are finding more uses. Are you deluded or what? How disconnected from reality and how entitled can one be?
Really? Entitlement? The rest of the developed world has faster, cheaper, and in many cases unlimited data, and you're calling me "entitled" for being incredulous about claims of the "ever-increasing cost of data transfer".
But, thanks for the insults. This place is really friendly!
But, thanks for the insults. This place is really friendly!
I know enough to conclude that it hasn't gotten more expensive to ship bits in the past ten years.
Are you kidding me?
We went from simple networks to 3G to 4G --which requires new infrastructure deployments every few years.
We went from the mobile web being almost nothing to hundreds of millions of very capable mobile web devices in the past ten years (iPhone/iPad/Android...).
Network usage increased exponentially with the newer, more useful devices. People were buying "unlimited" plans and used 100-300MB per month, not they can easily go to over several GBs.
It's like you have a "unlimited free refills" soda fountain. When everyone has 2-3 drinks it's ok. When everyone starts having 10-20 sodas, well, you start putting some limit to those "unlimited refills".
Are you kidding me?
We went from simple networks to 3G to 4G --which requires new infrastructure deployments every few years.
We went from the mobile web being almost nothing to hundreds of millions of very capable mobile web devices in the past ten years (iPhone/iPad/Android...).
Network usage increased exponentially with the newer, more useful devices. People were buying "unlimited" plans and used 100-300MB per month, not they can easily go to over several GBs.
It's like you have a "unlimited free refills" soda fountain. When everyone has 2-3 drinks it's ok. When everyone starts having 10-20 sodas, well, you start putting some limit to those "unlimited refills".
Downvoted? Really? Are these statements of fact and a simple analogy too controversial?
How much would your usage cost you with AT&T's current metered plans?
[deleted]
Don't most people, really, use iPads over wifi? Or am I just one of the cheapskates who bought one without 3G or 4G support?
I bought an iPad 2 last year and I didn't even consider buying one with a data plan. I am near wifi about 99% of the time, discounting driving, hiking, and airplane time. In a pinch, I can check email on my Droid.
Eventually 4G will become inexpensive, but it isn't right now.
I bought an iPad 2 last year and I didn't even consider buying one with a data plan. I am near wifi about 99% of the time, discounting driving, hiking, and airplane time. In a pinch, I can check email on my Droid.
Eventually 4G will become inexpensive, but it isn't right now.
"Don't most people, really, use iPads over wifi?"
No. I don't use the work wifi because it is severely limited (paranoid IT guy) and my iPad may access material I'd rather they not sniff (just NOYB stuff). I use it on the road for mapping, impromptu parking-lot Grouponing, whatever far from wifi. Open routers still often have some irritant signin or blacklists. Even at home my iPad often gets 3G better than wifi.
Don't underestimate the value of "always connected". A legacy unlimited plan multiplies it.
No. I don't use the work wifi because it is severely limited (paranoid IT guy) and my iPad may access material I'd rather they not sniff (just NOYB stuff). I use it on the road for mapping, impromptu parking-lot Grouponing, whatever far from wifi. Open routers still often have some irritant signin or blacklists. Even at home my iPad often gets 3G better than wifi.
Don't underestimate the value of "always connected". A legacy unlimited plan multiplies it.
I rely on the 'always on' internet connection that 3G provides me. When I need to look something up, I don't even think about wifi. I just look it up. There is value in that.
I sometimes trust 3G (and now 4G) more than I trust the available wifi, even over a VPN. Admittedly it's not that hard to put up a fake base station, but it's basically unlikely. Sometimes wifi at events is just badly run or overloaded, too.
There are also sites with rules about what's allowed to be on the network or not. Often a consultant or guest can't put his device on the network, at least without a lot of work (BYOD isn't done on many networks), but having network access is useful. There are also sometimes IP considerations (using an iPad or 4G hotspot during a break from a day job is less likely to be "using employer resources" to manage your startup if you're moonlighting than if you use their wifi...).
For +$130, it's worth it to me to have the capability. It also makes GPS more accurate, and maps is a really cool thing. I only replace my iPad every second generation, though.
There are also sites with rules about what's allowed to be on the network or not. Often a consultant or guest can't put his device on the network, at least without a lot of work (BYOD isn't done on many networks), but having network access is useful. There are also sometimes IP considerations (using an iPad or 4G hotspot during a break from a day job is less likely to be "using employer resources" to manage your startup if you're moonlighting than if you use their wifi...).
For +$130, it's worth it to me to have the capability. It also makes GPS more accurate, and maps is a really cool thing. I only replace my iPad every second generation, though.
I used to know someone who worked at a facility where he didn't trust the wifi (perhaps he thought they were running bluecoat or something). He just used an iPad 3G for all his personal stuff. He was pretty well regarded, so no issues on productivity/etc.
I really don't want or need all my devices to have seperate data contracts -- one contract (for the phone) and hotspot capability is just fine.
Same here.
Still, I bought a 3G ipad only because of the GPS chip in it. Even without the data plan it's quite valuable if you hook your ipad to your phone's hotspot or another wi-fi network.
Still, I bought a 3G ipad only because of the GPS chip in it. Even without the data plan it's quite valuable if you hook your ipad to your phone's hotspot or another wi-fi network.
Right. These two companies have somewhat destroyed mobile innovation by being the largest providers of mobile internet and neutering their services to be almost useless outside of checking email and web browsing. Comcast is doing their bit with their monthly limits also. I say this with an "unlimited" AT&T plan where I've reached my monthly limit. Hitting my limit slows my connection down to a crawl (it's almost unusable, the connection says edge).
Let's not be silly. Existing LTE phones on Verizon get a real-world top performance in the 20Mbps range. Now, that's great and all, but no one will ever get even 50% of what's basically the signaling rate of 73Mbps.
Also, your download patterns are unlikely to change a lot. It'll still be email, web surfing and some youtube. LTE makes netflix possible while not on wifi, but that's about the most data-hungry thing an average user is going to do. For the most part the only thing this changes is that things like installing apps when off wifi are much faster.
Also, your download patterns are unlikely to change a lot. It'll still be email, web surfing and some youtube. LTE makes netflix possible while not on wifi, but that's about the most data-hungry thing an average user is going to do. For the most part the only thing this changes is that things like installing apps when off wifi are much faster.
Sooo... 25 minutes of watching Netflix then?
Netflix doesn't let you connect over a data connection, IIRC. Well, unless you're tethering, but then you're killing your tethering device's data usage...
It definitely does. I watched Netflix on my phone for hours during a power outage.
Also, 4G is too unreliable, at least on my Verizon Samsung Stratosphere. It works great in some locations, but when I'm in transit (the main times I could risk running up a tab) it drops out pretty regularly.
I am not in the US but with my MiFi cabled to a computer I get around 40-60 mbit (a bit less when using wifi to share the connection).
The iPad does not have overage charges.
If you use up your data, you have to manually sign up for more data. If you sign up for more, it's like starting the month over from the time you sign up. You're also given the opportunity to switch to a plan with a different data size.
If you use up your data, you have to manually sign up for more data. If you sign up for more, it's like starting the month over from the time you sign up. You're also given the opportunity to switch to a plan with a different data size.
you can put anyone's sim in this one
>Sadly Sprint, which has unlimited 4G last i checked, was absent from the release of the new iPad.
I think Sprint is excluded because their 4G service is based on WiWax for now, although they are switching to LTE later this year and continuing into 2013.
I think Sprint is excluded because their 4G service is based on WiWax for now, although they are switching to LTE later this year and continuing into 2013.
The is a rumor that big telcos are going to offer companies to pay for their users bandwidth. I hope this never happens. That is not how you fix this issue.
While bandwidth does have physical limits, we can all agree the prices currently being charged are excessive.
The proper way to fix this is to have very local cells (or wifi). I would like to see cell networks pay individuals to connect mini cells to their home connections, and then allow any phone to connect to the cells. Wireless users get connectivity everywhere, mini cell operators have financial incentive to exist, and carriers reduce demand on their macro-scale network. If the telcos could agree on reasonably low prices (cost plus?), I would even agree to usage-based billing.
The wireless carriers would become dumb pipes (as they really are to begin with). Their new role would be to coordinate distribution of mini cells.
This system also creates incentive for wire line ISPs to increase their transfer rates to customers, and perhaps get into the mini cell game themselves.
The proper way to fix this is to have very local cells (or wifi). I would like to see cell networks pay individuals to connect mini cells to their home connections, and then allow any phone to connect to the cells. Wireless users get connectivity everywhere, mini cell operators have financial incentive to exist, and carriers reduce demand on their macro-scale network. If the telcos could agree on reasonably low prices (cost plus?), I would even agree to usage-based billing.
The wireless carriers would become dumb pipes (as they really are to begin with). Their new role would be to coordinate distribution of mini cells.
This system also creates incentive for wire line ISPs to increase their transfer rates to customers, and perhaps get into the mini cell game themselves.
Apple should really use their vast piles of cash to buy one of the major carriers.
It's a nice dream, but would it actually make sense? Spend a lot of money to get an expensive capital-intensive business that is very different to any other business units in Apple and operates in only one of the countries Apple has a market presence.
Google and Amazon are the companies that aim for the US first every single time. At least it would be unusual if Apple did the same here.
I wonder if the next step for Apple is to use their cash reserves to buy a carrier then of course all of their devices will be restricted to it.
Not really possible. If they were going to restrict their devices to their own carrier they would need a presence in most countries in the world. For Apple to buy a big carrier in every country they operate would be costly and stupid (it would be difficult to manage carriers all over the world when they just want to produce hardware and software).
They could MVNO (basically being a carrier reseller, buying bulk bandwidth from the actual network operator.) This is how Virgin Mobile, I think Boost, and some other networks have operated. Then reinforce with their own networks in places they care about (i.e. SFBA and NYC).
I don't think it makes sense, but I'm sure they've evaluated it. As a customer, having Apple as my single point of contact for everything mobile would be amazing, even if I had to pay a premium. Still wouldn't get around the limitations on spectrum and towers, though, but given that Apple's cash on hand is probably 15x Sprint's market capitalization, ...
I don't think it makes sense, but I'm sure they've evaluated it. As a customer, having Apple as my single point of contact for everything mobile would be amazing, even if I had to pay a premium. Still wouldn't get around the limitations on spectrum and towers, though, but given that Apple's cash on hand is probably 15x Sprint's market capitalization, ...
Not in one fell swoop.
They could get a carrier in the US to begin with while competing with other carriers.
Once they had a critial mass they could release some new device and restrict initially just that one to their network.
Once they had a critial mass they could release some new device and restrict initially just that one to their network.
That's what I think every time I see a 4G ad, "awesome! I can reach my data cap that much faster!"
If you have two or more iPads, why do they make you pay multiple monthly fixed-price amounts for connectivity? This is even more ridiculous when you consider that most devices are probably on WiFi most of the time. So, you are paying $mm per month times N devices for, well, nothing.
It's time for these contracts to become more reasonable. Right now they border on being nothing more than theft. Imagine this: You pay AT&T for your DSL line and you also pay them for wireless access for your iPad. You are paying them twice but only using one of the pipes at any given time.
It's time for these contracts to become more reasonable. Right now they border on being nothing more than theft. Imagine this: You pay AT&T for your DSL line and you also pay them for wireless access for your iPad. You are paying them twice but only using one of the pipes at any given time.
The contracts are for the devices, not you. It is possible to use them both at the same time, so ATT wants your money.
I definitely agree that they should do it your way though. Pricing is part of the product, and simple-to-understand pricing schemes will sell.
In the meantime, you might be able to get creative with swapping SIM cards around.
I definitely agree that they should do it your way though. Pricing is part of the product, and simple-to-understand pricing schemes will sell.
In the meantime, you might be able to get creative with swapping SIM cards around.
While this particular example seems extra silly, it does fit the long tradition of carriers advertising amazing new features that are technically true but always hampered in some minor way as to make them functionally useless.
I explain it to laypeople in one simple sentence: "You can't really watch the game on your phone."
I explain it to laypeople in one simple sentence: "You can't really watch the game on your phone."
Well I have no problem with them having a 2GB plan for people with only a smaller need to surf and check email but want good speed.
They do lack a plan with a decent cap, I can live without unlimited but the cap should be decent.
On my non-us LTE plan they reserve the right to throttle it if I use more than 30 GB a month. I think thats a decent cap (the price is approx. 52 USD a month including 25% VAT, cheaper plans with less data is available).
They do lack a plan with a decent cap, I can live without unlimited but the cap should be decent.
On my non-us LTE plan they reserve the right to throttle it if I use more than 30 GB a month. I think thats a decent cap (the price is approx. 52 USD a month including 25% VAT, cheaper plans with less data is available).
Inelegant, but you could get a Sprint Mobile hotspot and use it (and 4 other devices) with their 4G unlimited plan.
That's like how Verizon was selling iPads with MiFi's attached via a case.
I get 5-6 Mbps on Sprint. I don't think most people even on Verizon get 73Mbps.
Nothing mentioned about Siri. That is surprising, because I thought that inclusion would be a slam-dunk.
No mention of bumping the RAM from 512 MB to 1 GB. Even my TF101 Tegra 2 tablet has 1 GB of RAM. I wonder how much the 4x larger retina display assets will increase RAM usage.
Edit: I guess it does have 1 GB of RAM. http://chronicwire.com/the-ipad-3-has-1gb-of-ram
Edit: I guess it does have 1 GB of RAM. http://chronicwire.com/the-ipad-3-has-1gb-of-ram
Apple doesn't release how much memory their iOS devices have as a tech spec. The best we can do is find out by debug messages (like you just linked) or physically examining the device (ifixit).
Apple would say it has "enough" RAM. I thought that one of the game demos mentioned that it had more resources than an Xbox 360 or PS3, but I don't think they were talking about RAM.
Apple would say it has "enough" RAM. I thought that one of the game demos mentioned that it had more resources than an Xbox 360 or PS3, but I don't think they were talking about RAM.
The comparison to the amount of RAM in TF101 doesn't make any sense. It runs different software.
I did a test a 1024x768 PNG vs the Same PNG at 2048x1536. 299k vs 664k. So for raster images it more than doubles the footprint, however if you use vector assets there should be little impact.
After decompression into memory, that 2048x1536 image will take exactly four times the memory as a 1024x768 image.
But you don't store compressed PNGs in RAM for display by the GPU. Does the GPU even support lossless texture compression? I would imagine it supports lossy texture compression.
Edit: It is also interesting to see that the ~ 2x increase in the size of the PNG can be explained by PNG's run length encoding. When you double the pixels in each direction, RLE should readily compress the horizontal pixel replication but not the vertical pixel replication.
Edit: It is also interesting to see that the ~ 2x increase in the size of the PNG can be explained by PNG's run length encoding. When you double the pixels in each direction, RLE should readily compress the horizontal pixel replication but not the vertical pixel replication.
It seems Apple uses a "modified" png standard for iOS (enabled by default) that compresses the images even more when they are added to the App Bundle.
http://iphonedevwiki.net/index.php/CgBI_file_format#Decoding
True, though as jevinskie says, we're not talking here about the way images are stored on disk but about what needs to go in the GPU memory.
Totally understood, and I'm well aware of the increased memory footprint required once they are uncompressed.
Way back in 08 when I was working on my first iPhone app you had to be very careful with memory a small animation with 120 images of 50k each could quickly max out the 50mb of usable memory the iPhone 3G had unless you cashed properly and released assets as soon as they were not in use. I should have been more specific in my original post.
Yeah, iOS device GPUs support lossy texture compression in the form of PVRTC. There's no lossless texture compression support, as far as I know. (I'm talking in-memory here, obviously, not on disk as PNG or JPEG or whatever else.)
[deleted](1)
The 264dpi screen is a big deal. I was at a workshop with Edward Tufte this week. He extoled the virtures of using paper for information-rich data transfer. Having paper-like screen resolution is an obvious advantage for disseminating information.
I'd like to see a startup take on PowerPoint by releasing software to compose iPad-friendly presentations. Think one-pagers full of text, graphs, and figures. On an iPad they could be interactive, annotated, and linked together. Every iPad-toting meeting goer could scan a QR code on the way in to get on the same page, and then sit and discuss the content. Gone will be the days of presenters doling out bullet points at excruciatingly slow pace.
Having read Isaacson's biography of Jobs, it seems that Apple may be gunning to disrupt the textbook market. Having paper-like resolution is a great step in that direction.
I'd like to see a startup take on PowerPoint by releasing software to compose iPad-friendly presentations. Think one-pagers full of text, graphs, and figures. On an iPad they could be interactive, annotated, and linked together. Every iPad-toting meeting goer could scan a QR code on the way in to get on the same page, and then sit and discuss the content. Gone will be the days of presenters doling out bullet points at excruciatingly slow pace.
Having read Isaacson's biography of Jobs, it seems that Apple may be gunning to disrupt the textbook market. Having paper-like resolution is a great step in that direction.
When I was at Eyeo Casey Reas stated that print is like using a static version of a dynamic display from the future (or something to that effect) ... This talk about retina perception of pixels is indeed compelling and true, but 1200dpi is still "nicer" in many ways that I wouldn't want to try and prove on HN :P
Apple sells their Keynote presentation software for the iPad.
Keynote is great, but it's still slideware. People need to think about the iPad as a printer for dynamic content. It's smart paper.
Edit: Thanks to gte910h for pointing out iBooks Author. I wasn't aware of it!
http://www.apple.com/ibooks-author/
Edit: Thanks to gte910h for pointing out iBooks Author. I wasn't aware of it!
http://www.apple.com/ibooks-author/
You're thinking of the iBooks app (seriously, check out the free apple iBook creator). It's very dynamic content.
For publications you will use locally on the iPad, maybe.
If you're intending to publish via Apple, I'd say wait. After two weeks of waiting for Apple to approve a book I yanked it and am having the manuscript converted for Kindle sale as we speak. The conversion from the .ibooks file to anything usable in the real world was a giant pain. All of which was predictable and I knew that going in.
But as a book-writing tool it is great. I wrote an entire book on a direct flight from Los Angeles to Dubai. Edited it on the way back. Way, way better than Word.
Now I'm using Scrivener.
If you're intending to publish via Apple, I'd say wait. After two weeks of waiting for Apple to approve a book I yanked it and am having the manuscript converted for Kindle sale as we speak. The conversion from the .ibooks file to anything usable in the real world was a giant pain. All of which was predictable and I knew that going in.
But as a book-writing tool it is great. I wrote an entire book on a direct flight from Los Angeles to Dubai. Edited it on the way back. Way, way better than Word.
Now I'm using Scrivener.
Doesn't Creator's license restrict you from publishing a book authored with it on a different platform?
Time to bring back Hypercard? : P
Web standards are probably your best bet as a smart paper API.
Web standards are probably your best bet as a smart paper API.
[deleted]
There are quite a few bi tools that do pretty much what you're describing on the ipad and other mobile devices now. Share a link, pulls up an interactive dashboard for everyone that they can play with and discuss in the meeting. Many also let you build a slide deck in PowerPoint with interactive dashboards on each slide.
Now if you could have the ppt (or whatever) allow attendees to collaboratively interact with the current dashboard slide then you'd really have something.
Maybe I should get to work on that!
Now if you could have the ppt (or whatever) allow attendees to collaboratively interact with the current dashboard slide then you'd really have something.
Maybe I should get to work on that!
Won't this make it hard for developers to develop apps on Macs that still have only 1920x1080 displays?
the simulator already offers multiple levels of zoom
As mentioned elsewhere, Macs may see similar resolution bumps soon, along with resolution independent UI.
[deleted]
Huh, what about the meeting goers who aren't toting iPads? Couldn't your interactive presentations be achieved with content built to web standards?
Sure, maybe the output of the composer app is a web document. The point is that it should think like a book in terms of composition and layout, and less like a website.
It's 10% heavier:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/new-ipad-vs-ipad-2/
Yes, I know why, but I was hoping against hope it would get a little lighter. But I didn't think it would. Maybe next year, when there's no reason to up the resolution.
http://www.engadget.com/2012/03/07/new-ipad-vs-ipad-2/
Yes, I know why, but I was hoping against hope it would get a little lighter. But I didn't think it would. Maybe next year, when there's no reason to up the resolution.
I’m extremely happy that Apple is picking battery life over thickness and weight. It shows that they have their priorities straight: battery life is by far the best features of the iPad’s hardware. As long as the weight and size don’t get too crazy (and they are still doing better than the first iPad) picking battery life is always the right choice.
It's still slightly lighter than the first iPad, so for those of us who didn't upgrade, it'll be an improvement. :)
Heh, yes, by 5%. :)
I think a nice weight would be about 400g. The Kindles are 200-300g, except the DX-2 which is 540g.
I think a nice weight would be about 400g. The Kindles are 200-300g, except the DX-2 which is 540g.
I prefer my Nook Toucho the iPad for pure text reading because it is so ridiculously light. But it would be tough to make the iPad 3 lighter than it is, without major breakthroughs in batteries or materials (lighter gorilla glass).
Pushing 4x as many pixels doesn't come cheap. You have to add bigger batteries.
I'm really curious to see what the battery is like when playing games. Quadrupling the effective required fill rate is gonna have that GPU working overtime.
I'm really curious to see what the battery is like when playing games. Quadrupling the effective required fill rate is gonna have that GPU working overtime.
I think I would have been satisfied with a 4.5 hour battery life claim, if it was lighter than the iPad 2.
I guess we're left waiting for a big breakthrough in battery technology to see a decrease in the weight of these types of devices.
The new model has almost twice the battery capacity, and the battery probably accounts for almost all the weight, so it looks like there is a decent amount of yearly improvement.
Twice the battery capacity, but still rated at 10 hours. That new display must really drink the juice.
That's too bad. I held off on the original iPad because it felt too bulky and heavy. The second one was significantly thinner and lighter, so I bought one and have been using the hell out of it for the past year.
I'm excited that they're addressing user complaints about 'content creation'. iPhoto looks particularly impressive; it looks like people will be using their tablet devices for more than just content consumption now.
What user complaints? The only people saying that the iPad can't be used for content creation are blogosphere commentators arguing that it can't replace a laptop yet.
"...it looks like people will be using their tablet devices for more than just content consumption now."
They have been for a while...
They have been for a while...
Looks like the iPad2 is available for $399 now.
The Apple Store was live for about two minutes but a DDOS from everyone trying to pre-order brought it down and they went back to "We'll be back soon"
I would love to see how many hits they are getting.
I would love to see how many hits they are getting.
Pre-ordering will be a lottery. I've been trying to get to the online Store for more than half an hour and I get either server error, "we'll be back soon" or incredibly slow connection (which then fails). I managed to get once to iPad page but clicking on any link brought me back to server error.
The store went down just as the checkout page (page after the smart cover upsell page) was loading. I auto refreshed on that URL and was able to place my preorder a few minutes ago.
I stopped counting, but I must have started over a dozen times before I was finally able to check out. What I didn't know was that each walk through the iPad page was ordering another iPad, so my cart wound up with five of them (!) but thankfully removing the extra three didn't make me start over.
[Aside: The new Apple TV is impossible to order from the website because the page has no continue or buy button! Maybe they'll notice when first day sales are zero. You can add one to your cart from the Apple Store iPhone app, but so far I have been unable to check out. Apple seriously underestimated the order volume for these products!]
[Aside: The new Apple TV is impossible to order from the website because the page has no continue or buy button! Maybe they'll notice when first day sales are zero. You can add one to your cart from the Apple Store iPhone app, but so far I have been unable to check out. Apple seriously underestimated the order volume for these products!]
Does anyone know if OpenGL's 1024x1024 image size restriction is being raised as well? Seems pretty limiting to not even be able to make an image that's as big as the screen without tiling four of them together.
Does anyone know if OpenGL's 1024x1024 image size restriction is being raised as well?
Referring to the maximum texture size, I assume? Don't current iOS / PowerVR implementations have a max texture size of 2048x2048? It isn't intrinsic to OpenGL but is implementation specific -- for instance the Mali-400 (GS II) and Tegra 2/3 is 4096x4096.
Referring to the maximum texture size, I assume? Don't current iOS / PowerVR implementations have a max texture size of 2048x2048? It isn't intrinsic to OpenGL but is implementation specific -- for instance the Mali-400 (GS II) and Tegra 2/3 is 4096x4096.
I'm glad they didn't call it "iPad HD". Call me pedantic, but HD should be limited to ITU 'HDTV' broadcast spec, and the iPad 3's resolution doesn't fit. Instead it just confuses things with imprecise language.
The world of LCD panels baffles me. For some reason Apple can sell an iPad with a 2048x1536 IPS screen for $500 but your average $1,000 laptop comes with a crappy 1366x768 TFT screen or maybe 1920x1080 if you're lucky.
Apple can commit to shipping millions of iPads and makes procurement decisions based on that fact. You're talking about the company that buys a significant proportion of the world's NAND flash production preordered a year ahead of time. iPad has enough economy of scale that as soon as Apple found a display manufacturer able and willing to manufacture the screen they wanted, they immediately promised a large enough preorder to make it cost-effective. Remember, Apple ships more iPads than any PC manufacturer ships total units, and all those iPads use the same parts.
So in case you were wondering why Apple keeps obscene piles of cash around, that's why.
So in case you were wondering why Apple keeps obscene piles of cash around, that's why.
Apple has effectively paid for some of its suppliers factories to ensure parts availability. Good position to be in. http://www.asymco.com/2011/01/23/the-bank-of-apple-using-cap...
If it's true that apple preorders one year in advance, it really gives them a big advantage in terms of procurement. And here I'm talking about better prices, prefered customer status and guaranteed material availability. Add to that the huge quantities, and you get a really nice position for Apple.
What really impresses me, beyond the near-perfect marketing they have, is the way they clearly are managing their supply chain, down to the very end-costumer. For, Apple may easily become the SCM benchmark Toyota used to be a decade ago.
Not anymore, they seem to be selling the new iPads and the old iPads, which will mean two display sizes. Still, your point holds.
The other issue is that Apple has enough money to invest in factories, not that it owns them, but it can put money up front to encourage building them. I would not be surprised if they had a 1 year hold on screens of this size, just as they did for the iphone 4 (although even today noone is using the same screens as the 4).
The other issue is that Apple has enough money to invest in factories, not that it owns them, but it can put money up front to encourage building them. I would not be surprised if they had a 1 year hold on screens of this size, just as they did for the iphone 4 (although even today noone is using the same screens as the 4).
Yet, Im really interessted how Apple actually deals with its suppliers. My guess is that they are not really, well how should I put it, nice? to deal with. Judging from their enourmous growth AND their steady growing profits, Apple prouved an impressive upward flexibility. To manage that you have to be a pain the ass for your suppliers, yet you have to fair.
Pretty cool how they walk that razors edge. Guess Apple dominace is a major for the competition in more than one way.
I think the biggest issue is simply thet desktop operating systems doesn't have good resolution independence. So for most people, a laptop display with more than 1920x1080 will make icons and buttons very small by default. And of course, most people (and businesses) don't care either way and don't want to pay for the price difference.
True. Not even the ones made by Apple. Even after 10 years of shrinking desktop feature sizes. Clearly there is much more money to be made in tablets and mobile than laptops...
> True. Not even the ones made by Apple.
Apple is probably the worst offender on that issue, in fact.
Apple is probably the worst offender on that issue, in fact.
Huh? Apple offers 1366x768 in 11", 1440x900 in 13", and 1680x1050 in 15". The only comparable-and-better that I know of is the 1600x900 HP something-or-other.
They aren't standouts (although the 15" at 1680x1050 is really nice), but they're no worse than anybody else.
EDIT: I misread the original post. Sorry about that. That said, OS X isn't appreciably worse as far as resolution independence than the rest of your options. (Not that that's praise for OS X, but neither GNOME nor Windows are particularly good either.)
They aren't standouts (although the 15" at 1680x1050 is really nice), but they're no worse than anybody else.
EDIT: I misread the original post. Sorry about that. That said, OS X isn't appreciably worse as far as resolution independence than the rest of your options. (Not that that's praise for OS X, but neither GNOME nor Windows are particularly good either.)
He's not talking about resolutions provided (and my Vaio has a 1920x1080 15" display if you're looking for examples there) he's talking about support for different DPIs.
Windows 7/8 "kinda" work in this regard - I have to use accessibility addons in firefox to make it play nice, IE just stretches everything, I have no experience with OSX.
Windows 7/8 "kinda" work in this regard - I have to use accessibility addons in firefox to make it play nice, IE just stretches everything, I have no experience with OSX.
Really? The 'different DPI' settings have been in since Vista, and worked pretty pervasively.
The main problem is third-party apps that don't respect the settings. It's not a huge problem. I've noticed some of the UI elements in windows get distorted sometimes too.
Changing DPI settings still screws up various applications on Windows 7 (fonts on various UI elements don't scale consistently, e.g. Visual Studio 2010 is messed up, games are usually completely broken even modern ones like Starcraft II, etc.) and overall make the system very frustrating to use (especially annoying since I have a pair of IBM T221s capable of 3840x2400). That being said it's still worthwhile when I'm in e.g. Lightroom.
[deleted]
[deleted]
HP offered a 1920x1200 display in some of their 15" laptops. And Apple lagged behind in screen resolution for years (when I bought my Mac, 1440x900 was the highest res 15" display they sold).
Fair enough. I think saying OS X is "the worst offender" about resolution independence is at best hyperbolic, though. They're not good, but neither is anyone else.
It's mindblowing. When my last laptop broke, I had to turn to eBay to get a PC laptop with a decent screen... HP briefly sold a 1600x900 14" screen in the Envy line then discontinued it, so I found a used one and paid a premium for it. Everything in every retail store was 1366x768, washed out and dim.
Using Apple's definition of a retina display, the MacBook Pros are already very close: http://www.tuaw.com/2012/03/01/retina-display-macs-ipads-and...
You hold your laptop significantly farther from your face than an iPad, thus a lower PPI is sufficient. However, a 9.7" display with the iPad's PPI is getting close to acceptable sizes for small laptops, like the 13" MacBook Pros.
You hold your laptop significantly farther from your face than an iPad, thus a lower PPI is sufficient. However, a 9.7" display with the iPad's PPI is getting close to acceptable sizes for small laptops, like the 13" MacBook Pros.
But the other thing is quality. Viewing angles and color gamut tends to be horrible on laptops. Not so on the iPad.
There was a single plant which made big laptop IPS panels (15-17") which got shut down; they were used in IBM FlexView on the Lenovos up to the T60p (2006). IPS is still rare between iPad size and small high-end monitor size (20").
I'm still sad that even the MBP 17 comes with a 6-bit PVA panel. It's a nice panel, but dramatically inferior to an 8 or 10 bit IPS.
I'm still sad that even the MBP 17 comes with a 6-bit PVA panel. It's a nice panel, but dramatically inferior to an 8 or 10 bit IPS.
The MBP comes with TN, not PVA. PVA is actually a fairly good technology. S-PVA has the darkest blacks of all panels, but is really really slow. You can see the ghosting when the camera pans in a movie.
Ah. From what I've read now, only some models of the Lenovo X200t ever shipped with PVA in a laptop (some were IPS, some were PVA). I guess different qualities of TN make a difference.
It all makes the IPS panels in the iPads even more impressive. From what I've read the IPS panel yield goes down with DPI, too, so the panel in the iPad (Early 2012) is amazing.
It all makes the IPS panels in the iPads even more impressive. From what I've read the IPS panel yield goes down with DPI, too, so the panel in the iPad (Early 2012) is amazing.
My ThinkPad has the same resolution as the new iPad -- 2048x1536. I'm thinking of upgrading it to an iPad if it ever runs Linux...
Screen area costs money. Also, economy of scale; the iPad outsells any laptop model by a wide margin.
Exactly, Apple sells around 2mil+ Macs/Qtr most of which are laptops however they sell 15+mil iPads. It's easier to get volume deals on 15 million displays then it is 1-2mil.
Actually, I would think it would be the inverse. 1 million of anything is a volume order. 15 million of something means that the supplier has to build a new factory.
The cost is mostly in the tooling. So, if you are doing 1 million units and running your tooling 6000 hours per year, then if the cycle time is less than 20 seconds for any operation, then you are not fully using that piece of equipment. If you are doing 15M units a year, you will need to design/build/buy 10-100 units for each manufacturing step. That cuts your cost tremendously, because the custom design and engineering only needs to be done once.
Apple has been known to build the factories for the suppliers or at least contributing to the cost to secure the products coming out of said factory. I remember them building a factory with Samsung (ironic) and Foxxconn.
Apple could release a 9.7" Air and use the same IPS screen as the iPad. (Even better would be a 13" Air/13" iPad with the same screen. I'd buy both.)
I believe folks have already seen evidence in OSX that Apple will be doing "retina" displays for laptops and desktops. Continued movement towards a resolution-independent OS.
Actually, I see this as the abandonment of resolution independence. Apple has always been about pixel-perfect graphics, and that's quite hard to do with vector assets. Fonts have to have all sorts of hinting to get single-pixel risers and joins to look decent. That's one of the reasons that fonts are so costly – now imagine that all your graphics require that level of care. Making pixel-perfect "@2x" graphics is much easier.
Then again, maybe those hints are only necessary because of the limitations of low resolution displays. If each pixel is barely large enough to be discerned by the naked eye, single-pixel accuracy may not matter so much. Clearly resolution independence is still desirable for accessibility reasons, even at the end of the pixel density road.
Then again, maybe those hints are only necessary because of the limitations of low resolution displays. If each pixel is barely large enough to be discerned by the naked eye, single-pixel accuracy may not matter so much. Clearly resolution independence is still desirable for accessibility reasons, even at the end of the pixel density road.
Actually, I see this as the abandonment of resolution independence.
I was thinking the same thing. It's amusing to think that Apple found resolution independence harder than waiting for/making panels quadruple in size. Certainly good for marketing though :)
I was thinking the same thing. It's amusing to think that Apple found resolution independence harder than waiting for/making panels quadruple in size. Certainly good for marketing though :)
Even if you want to move towards resolution independence, when you have a huge universe of apps at a particular resolution, simply doubling the screen size is the easiest way to let them migrate with minimal pain. It's a lot easier to tell them that the _minimum_ thing they have to do is double their measurements than force them to jump entirely over to a non-pixel-based regime. At the same time you can start introducing resolution-independent UX for new apps.
On mobile devices, it may still be prohibitive to continually convert from vector art to pixels. I guess they could do it at build time.
The 4:3 aspect ratio is the big thing. Impossible to buy a laptop with that spec any more. A new ThinkPad X series with the iPad's display would be amazing.
With the Retina display, using the new iPad as a second display for the Mac (using the Air Display app) becomes more interesting.
I think the change is due to cheap and plentiful on-board graphics that limits the screen resolution but provides a longer battery life.
Since most users don't need a powerful gaming laptop, manufacturers use the cheap, efficient, but limited on-board graphics processors.
I would think that this is largely due to the fact that Apple uses its massive cash reserves to effectively lock-in parts exclusively for their products.
Its not like that part is a COTS part that is available to all OEMs.
Its not like that part is a COTS part that is available to all OEMs.
I thought the same thing. It was one of the reasons I didn't think they'd be able to do a retina iPad, it would just be too expensive.
Look at the prices of your average 47" LCD HDTV sets, way over $500. And they're probably making less money per unit than the iPad. I don't know how Apple is doing it.
Look at the prices of your average 47" LCD HDTV sets, way over $500. And they're probably making less money per unit than the iPad. I don't know how Apple is doing it.
Someone should sell a conversion kit to make it a monitor. I'd drop $100 for that.
I have four Android smartphones and two tablets, but this is the first Apple product that has really opened my wallet. Literally, my wallet is sitting open.
But their store keeps crashing and going back to the offline state. Called their phone sales and they couldn't help me because they use the online system to enter orders. :-)
Ah well, I'll get one soon enough.
But their store keeps crashing and going back to the offline state. Called their phone sales and they couldn't help me because they use the online system to enter orders. :-)
Ah well, I'll get one soon enough.
What is it about it that made you want it so much? There will be Android tablets with just as high or higher resolution very soon, and with stronger CPU's than the still dual core Cortex A9 chip in the iPad 3.
I preordered an iPad 3 and plan to sell my Galaxy Tab 10.1 as soon as the iPad shows up.
The integration with Google Talk and Gmail is a plus for Android, but Android on a tablet seems to still suck for usability otherwise. Additionally battery life sucks (some random app would occasionally just grab a wakelock and suck down battery to zero), and so does media management.
And after having an Android tablet for 10 months now, I still have yet to see apps for it that are as compelling as I've seen from day one on the iPad. Aside from Google's own apps, Android apps that actually take advantage of the tablet form factor (as opposed to just being smartphone apps that get stretched awkwardly to the giant screen) are few and far between.
The integration with Google Talk and Gmail is a plus for Android, but Android on a tablet seems to still suck for usability otherwise. Additionally battery life sucks (some random app would occasionally just grab a wakelock and suck down battery to zero), and so does media management.
And after having an Android tablet for 10 months now, I still have yet to see apps for it that are as compelling as I've seen from day one on the iPad. Aside from Google's own apps, Android apps that actually take advantage of the tablet form factor (as opposed to just being smartphone apps that get stretched awkwardly to the giant screen) are few and far between.
It's like the megahertz war from way back when - you might have a CPU with 100% more megahertz but you're still using windows.
So continuing the analogy... Apple mobile products will switch to Android in about five years and their marketing won't miss a beat?
I'm thinking the same thing. The ASUS infinity's 1920x1200 screen is probably high enough to qualify as "retina" for my eyes at normal viewing distances, and the dual-S4 appears to be at least twice as fast as a dual core A9. The WIFI model isn't quite as exciting because it only uses quad core A9.
The Asus Infinity is on my shortlist, however realistically when could it be in hand? Next month? The next month? Late summer?
That's sadly how it usually is for products from just about any other company, and I wish they would learn from Apple. One company that seems to have gotten a clue on that is Samsung who are quite rightly trying to quiet the Galaxy S III noise until it is close to general availability.
As to the actual CPU power I think it's reasonable to say that we're at a stage where how you use the CPU becomes far more important than the CPU itself. Apple manages to make a "1st generation" iPad operate competitively with a current generation Transformer Prime. That is just perverse. I want to fully exploit those dual A15 cores of the Infinity LTE, but sadly a lot of it is just trying to overcome the software gap.
That's sadly how it usually is for products from just about any other company, and I wish they would learn from Apple. One company that seems to have gotten a clue on that is Samsung who are quite rightly trying to quiet the Galaxy S III noise until it is close to general availability.
As to the actual CPU power I think it's reasonable to say that we're at a stage where how you use the CPU becomes far more important than the CPU itself. Apple manages to make a "1st generation" iPad operate competitively with a current generation Transformer Prime. That is just perverse. I want to fully exploit those dual A15 cores of the Infinity LTE, but sadly a lot of it is just trying to overcome the software gap.
I had always considered getting one simply to be able to test personal web projects on it. This -- being the latest tech at the same price -- presents good timing to do so.
I'm an Android believer from a philosophical and practical perspective, however I have to credit Apple: they don't talk about an HD display and then bring it out six months later, but instead talk about it when the shipments are loading on the trucks. Further the empirical strength of the A5X, thus far unproven, may not always top artificial benchmarks, but they seem to get a heck of a lot more out of it.
I'm an Android believer from a philosophical and practical perspective, however I have to credit Apple: they don't talk about an HD display and then bring it out six months later, but instead talk about it when the shipments are loading on the trucks. Further the empirical strength of the A5X, thus far unproven, may not always top artificial benchmarks, but they seem to get a heck of a lot more out of it.
I think Apple is doing a great thing by pushing up display resolutions. I can't believe that PC manufacturers still REFUSE to produce laptops (at least consumer grade) with any resolutions higher than 1366x768.
I've been watching consumer laptop sales for a year and the only one I've seen with a higher resolutions is a 17" beast. Luckily I got a 15" Macbook Pro from work with a 1680x1050.
Everyone's known since the iPhone 4 that Apple would do a hi-res Tablet display, but PC manufacturers still refuse to innovate and put in hi-res displays in their laptops.
I refuse to try to write code with only 768 vertical lines.
I've been watching consumer laptop sales for a year and the only one I've seen with a higher resolutions is a 17" beast. Luckily I got a 15" Macbook Pro from work with a 1680x1050.
Everyone's known since the iPhone 4 that Apple would do a hi-res Tablet display, but PC manufacturers still refuse to innovate and put in hi-res displays in their laptops.
I refuse to try to write code with only 768 vertical lines.
I think the opposite is true--Apple's laptops actually have much lower resolutions than some other options. The 13" laptop I'm currently using (which is even lighter than an Air) has a 1600x900 resolution; if I had been willing to order online they would have upgraded it to 1920x1080 for free (but I am not a patient man and at 13" that's a bit of overkill).
If Apple releases a retina screen Air, I would seriously consider getting it. If they make one about as heavy with a high resolution and a 15" screen, I'm definitely getting one unless it has a slow SSD or is really incompatible with Linux.
If Apple releases a retina screen Air, I would seriously consider getting it. If they make one about as heavy with a high resolution and a 15" screen, I'm definitely getting one unless it has a slow SSD or is really incompatible with Linux.
Personally, I would prefer to be able to still buy laptops (or any monitor for that matter) with a more "square" ratio.
I have a new laptop with a 1366x768 resolution but my older P4 laptop with 1280x1024 (or thereabouts) is much more pleasant to write code (or write anything) on. Those extra 266 vertical pixels just make all the difference especially when you have so many toolbars etc.
I don't understand why everything has to be widescreen now, it may be preferable for movies but that's surely not the main use case for a computer. That's what a TV is for.
I have a new laptop with a 1366x768 resolution but my older P4 laptop with 1280x1024 (or thereabouts) is much more pleasant to write code (or write anything) on. Those extra 266 vertical pixels just make all the difference especially when you have so many toolbars etc.
I don't understand why everything has to be widescreen now, it may be preferable for movies but that's surely not the main use case for a computer. That's what a TV is for.
My year-old Dell XPS-15 has a 1920x1080 display (15") and is fairly "consumer grade". Granted it was an option, but still. Actually I have a problem with this screen - the font is too small (windows doesn't rescale automatically).
That's interesting to know. Still, considering the hundreds of models of laptops available, it's a very very small percentage that offer anything other than 1366x768. The Macbook's minimum resolutions is 1440x900 and they offer 1680x1050 as an option.
ASUS n55sf is <$1k from some vendors with 1920x1080 (plus quad core i7, 2 gb nvidia 555m, 8 gb ram)
I'm wondering if my grandfathered unlimited plan with AT&T can be applied to the iPad?
Is it just me or do the comparison pics of the old iPad screen vs. new retina display on this page look exactly the same? http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
Edit: never mind, there's a zoom widget I didn't notice.
Edit: never mind, there's a zoom widget I didn't notice.
Is the loupe showing up for you? It didn't for me the first time I loaded the page, and I thought the same thing you did.
It should look like this: http://i.imgur.com/WUQ7n.jpg
It should look like this: http://i.imgur.com/WUQ7n.jpg
They looked exactly the same to me as well the first time I looked. When I just clicked again a magnifying glass widget appeared over them that wasn't there the first time (even though I spent quite a while staring and scratching my head). It's obvious when that pops up.
Talk to your optometrist.
"Quad-core graphics" seems like misleading marketing to trick people into thinking A5X is equivalent to Tegra 3; this seems like a shame since Apple could presumably win without it.
Since the pixels are multiplied by 4, and the GPU only by 2, does this means the real world performance (in games) of the iPad 3 GPU should be half the performance of iPad 2?
That sort of depends on where the bottlenecks are, and what multiplying the GPU by 2 means. Basically, there's not enough info to say, and it'll probably require some benchmarking to tell.
The two aren't directly related. More pixels means more information to store and process, but that's just one component of rendering.
I doubt they are using the same GPU that's in the iPad 2,I suspect that they went with a higher end GPU and made it Quad. We will have to wait for a teardown to know with 100% certainty though.
A teardown won't tell you anything: it'll tell you that the GPU is in a chip called the A5X. You might be able to get a little more by pulling out an electron microscope, but iFixit doesn't go that far, yet. :)
It'll be the people doing software sleuthing that'll get you the answer.
However we are fairly confident that Apple didn't build their own GPU -- they would have bragged about it if they did. There are a limited number of GPUs IP blocks available for licensing, so that does mean that speculation can be relatively accurate. Their use of the term "quad-core" makes it highly likely they're using the SGX543MP4, twice what is in the iPad 2 (although perhaps higher clocked or with better memory bandwidth). That's also the GPU in the playstation vita.
It'll be the people doing software sleuthing that'll get you the answer.
However we are fairly confident that Apple didn't build their own GPU -- they would have bragged about it if they did. There are a limited number of GPUs IP blocks available for licensing, so that does mean that speculation can be relatively accurate. Their use of the term "quad-core" makes it highly likely they're using the SGX543MP4, twice what is in the iPad 2 (although perhaps higher clocked or with better memory bandwidth). That's also the GPU in the playstation vita.
Why are you assuming it's linear?
Ouch, Just ordered 32gb 4g (AT&T) $780 with tax.
If I were not using it for development it would hurt a lot more however it still is about double what I would be comfortable with for my own use.
I'm always kind of surprised that the online store doesn't update instantly. I have to imagine that their "We'll be back soon" splash page kills a lot of potential impulse purchases.
It seems to be back now, but the iPhone is showing "From $0", and clicking on the iPad gives an "Oops" error page. Couldn't this all be worked out in staging?
It seems to be back now, but the iPhone is showing "From $0", and clicking on the iPad gives an "Oops" error page. Couldn't this all be worked out in staging?
> It seems to be back now, but the iPhone is showing "From $0"
This is actually the correct pricing for the iPhone, since the 3GS is available free when signing up for a 2-year plan from AT&T.
This is actually the correct pricing for the iPhone, since the 3GS is available free when signing up for a 2-year plan from AT&T.
Ah interesting, thanks for the correction, it's been too long since I've bought one of those. I didn't realize that they were even supporting the 3GS anymore, let alone selling it.
I doubt anything technical prevents instant updating. Showmanship is a big part of the corporate DNA.
I doubt the reason is technical. Showmanship is a big part of Apple's corporate DNA.
[deleted]
I think this link is titled wrong.
Nowhere is it referred to as iPad 3, iPad HD or anything like that. It's just "The new iPad"
Nowhere is it referred to as iPad 3, iPad HD or anything like that. It's just "The new iPad"
[deleted]
During iPhone 4S release, who cares about 4G. iPad HD, all hail 4G!
Isn't the LTE migration in part a cost saving measure for carriers and later on the final user?
From what I remember, LTE does pump more data in a more cheap way; and the infrastructure for it is more cheap also.
From what I remember, LTE does pump more data in a more cheap way; and the infrastructure for it is more cheap also.
so Apple ditches Flash for HTML5, but requires Quicktime to play the Retina tech video?
http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
yo dawg! we used quicktime to showcase your iPad3 so you can use apple proprietary tech while you watch apple proprietary tech.
I wonder what the implications of this will be for web design?
A website built with a fixed with 1000 pixel design is suddenly going to look pretty silly on a new ipad.
Of course if you design around large resolutions you will marginalize those with standard displays.
A website built with a fixed with 1000 pixel design is suddenly going to look pretty silly on a new ipad.
Of course if you design around large resolutions you will marginalize those with standard displays.
It will work exactly like it does on the iPhone—if you specify 1000 pixels, it will be 1000 pixels wide on the non-retina iPads, and 2000 pixels on the new iPad.
Resolutionary. What a godawful marketing department word. The first thing you see. I miss Steve.
It's not unprecedented. The Macbook Air was marketed with "Thinovation"
The equivalent on the German Apple page seems to be "Sehvolutionär", literally "see-volutionary". (In case you thought it couldn't be worse.) Though I actually think it's a fun idea.
There was also the funnest iPod.
I'm pretty psyched about the 1080p video. We just released our iPad app, which compresses video and shares it with people / teams, and my hope is that this will drive further adoption. Also, I want one, and I want to be able to share the video I take with it.
I do resent how poorly my iPad 1 performs now though. I only bought it 18 months ago!
I do resent how poorly my iPad 1 performs now though. I only bought it 18 months ago!
Apple can't keep the Apple store up. Why are they surprised by the load?
Why I will not be buying an iPad 3:
- Resolution: Who cares. - Camera: Who cares. - 4GLTE with a ridiculous price and cap. No thanks
I don't think there's anything really compelling about the iPad 3 for the masses. Sure, they'll sell a bunch of them, mainly because, well, that's what they are selling now.
Being on WiFi most of the time I don't see any motivation to get an iPad 3 over my iPad 2. Most of the time the iPad 2 is used to casually browse the web on the couch, play chess and mess around with other games. In none of these use cases has the iPad 2 screen resolution proven to be an issue at all.
Once usage becomes more serious iPad 2 goes on the shelf and I/we switch to computers. All of our home computers are equipped with a minimum of two 24inch 1920 x 1200 pixel screens. There is no way the iPad 2 or 3 experience can compete with this at any level.
I think Apple needs to fix the issue of carriers gouging customers for connectivity. We have four iPhones and two iPads. Why are we paying six fixed-cost, limited usage data plans when the devices are on WiFi most of the time? Why is it that we can't buy a "family" plan, if you will, and pay one fee for connectivity. That's what you do with DSL: You pay one amount for a data rate and it doesn't matter if you have one or fifteen computers attached to the service.
The next revolution in mobile might not come until the recurring costs involved in using these devices come under control.
- Resolution: Who cares. - Camera: Who cares. - 4GLTE with a ridiculous price and cap. No thanks
I don't think there's anything really compelling about the iPad 3 for the masses. Sure, they'll sell a bunch of them, mainly because, well, that's what they are selling now.
Being on WiFi most of the time I don't see any motivation to get an iPad 3 over my iPad 2. Most of the time the iPad 2 is used to casually browse the web on the couch, play chess and mess around with other games. In none of these use cases has the iPad 2 screen resolution proven to be an issue at all.
Once usage becomes more serious iPad 2 goes on the shelf and I/we switch to computers. All of our home computers are equipped with a minimum of two 24inch 1920 x 1200 pixel screens. There is no way the iPad 2 or 3 experience can compete with this at any level.
I think Apple needs to fix the issue of carriers gouging customers for connectivity. We have four iPhones and two iPads. Why are we paying six fixed-cost, limited usage data plans when the devices are on WiFi most of the time? Why is it that we can't buy a "family" plan, if you will, and pay one fee for connectivity. That's what you do with DSL: You pay one amount for a data rate and it doesn't matter if you have one or fifteen computers attached to the service.
The next revolution in mobile might not come until the recurring costs involved in using these devices come under control.
I feel like apple is already slipping without steve jobs. calling the new ipad "the new ipad" certainly doesnt seem like a smart move (same goes with the iphone 4s - wouldnt you rather have an iphone 5?). and furthermore, there's again very little innovation in the device, the outside hasnt changed at all, albeit being a little thicker. just improving display resolution seems like a change most ipad2 users won't appreciate enough. I just feel like that apple is now just draining every penny from it's customers with small innovations and a huge brand - while still being unable to decide what to do with it's stockpiles of money.
I actually agree with you to a large extent (especially on the iPhone 4s), but a vastly improved resolution + substantially better hardware do constitute a legitimate incremental release.
You can't really expect them to do a full redesign with every product iteration, especially when they've obviously already landed on a local maxima of aesthetics and usability.
You can't really expect them to do a full redesign with every product iteration, especially when they've obviously already landed on a local maxima of aesthetics and usability.
yes but it still feels like those are rather intangible improvements to the average consumer. will he care so much about improved resolutions and processor speed? speaking of aesthetics, I would love to see a screen without bezel on the side (like the galaxy s3).
It sincerely bothers me that no where no the apple.com site, has Apple referred to his as the iPad 3. The closest thing to a new name that they've given is "The new iPad".
Please everyone stop calling this the iPad 3.
Please everyone stop calling this the iPad 3.
It says a lot that the longest thread thread here is about data plans. I guess this is a logical iteration of the iPad 2 but they really seem to have left the door open for an Android manufacturer to leap ahead here. Both this and the 4S feel like Apple on autopilot.
Apple releases Ipad 3 - and no one cares.
Wonder how many are willing to upgrade from Ipad 2? I have an Ipad 2, I don't see a need to upgrade.
I am sure the tablet devices will follow a similar cycle as iPhone. Upgrade once in 2 years. I am beginning to wonder, the only aspects that might make me want to upgrade to IPad 4 next year, could be faster processor and more memory, thus making the overall experience better. I am sure Apple will have some exclusive software that will run only on their latest device (ex: Siri), that might force me to upgrade. Given how I use the Ipad right now - Videos, Netflix and eBooks (very limited browsing), I am ok with what I have now.
Will be good to know some statistics on how many upgraded to Ipad 2 from Ipad 1.
I am sure the tablet devices will follow a similar cycle as iPhone. Upgrade once in 2 years. I am beginning to wonder, the only aspects that might make me want to upgrade to IPad 4 next year, could be faster processor and more memory, thus making the overall experience better. I am sure Apple will have some exclusive software that will run only on their latest device (ex: Siri), that might force me to upgrade. Given how I use the Ipad right now - Videos, Netflix and eBooks (very limited browsing), I am ok with what I have now.
Will be good to know some statistics on how many upgraded to Ipad 2 from Ipad 1.
Most of us moving up from the iPad2 already sold our iPads.
Agree, that is an option to make it easier to decide to upgrade. The question is are you (and the others who sold their iPad2) gadget freaks that lust for new stuff, or do you really see a value in the upgrade.
What I am trying to figure out is, what keeps you(/me) wanting to upgrade to new tablets frequently, where as we are perfectly ok, running our 3+ year old Mac. Maybe the price point makes it more affordable to upgrade frequently.
What I am trying to figure out is, what keeps you(/me) wanting to upgrade to new tablets frequently, where as we are perfectly ok, running our 3+ year old Mac. Maybe the price point makes it more affordable to upgrade frequently.
I purchased the iPad2 despite being disappointed with the screen, but I knew I would use the device to death. I basically went into the purchase knowing I would be selling it in less than a year since apple products hold their value so well. So this upgrade does have a huge amount of value for me as the ipad2 display is very limiting.
I am sort of a 'gadget freak', but I force myself to be on a budget and that usually requires me to sell my devices pretty frequently. With that said, I will probably use the ipad3 for the 2 year cycle unless I'm not impressed with the ipad5 (doubtful).
I still have a 27" 2009 iMac that I absolutely love and probably won't be upgrading for a few more years (when desktop retina displays are common place). Once you get into the apple product cycle, if you buy early in the cycle and sell late, upgrades are not that painful. When I sold my netbook 2 years later I basically gave it away... that was painful.
I am sort of a 'gadget freak', but I force myself to be on a budget and that usually requires me to sell my devices pretty frequently. With that said, I will probably use the ipad3 for the 2 year cycle unless I'm not impressed with the ipad5 (doubtful).
I still have a 27" 2009 iMac that I absolutely love and probably won't be upgrading for a few more years (when desktop retina displays are common place). Once you get into the apple product cycle, if you buy early in the cycle and sell late, upgrades are not that painful. When I sold my netbook 2 years later I basically gave it away... that was painful.
Everyone is speaking about bandwidth speed, but what about the first major product launch of the post-Steve era? What was your impression about it? A little bit of something clearly wasn't there if you ask me
I don't know. It was better than the last announcement, the day before Steve died. But then, I suspect that none of them were at their best that day. At any rate Tim seemed much more relaxed this time round. There were moments where he really did seem to be enjoying himself - the big thumbs up after the Siri Japan demonstration springs to mind, but there were a couple of other moments too.
In the presentation, Cook refers to the "new iPad" with no "3". Inside Apple, they probably have viewed what we call the iPad 1 and iPad 2 as the prequel 1 and prequel 2 to the actual iPad, which is only now finished.