iPad2
 

I think I'm going to pull the trigger next Friday and order an iPad2 w/ a Verizon data plan. Moving from a smart phone to a regular cell phone (no data plan) and an iPad for email and some web access. At my 'advanced' age squinting at smallish screens to read email quite frankly sucks. Having a device that is more capable than a smartphone trumps the fact that it won't be nearly as portable. I can live with that. Can't decide if I want to upgrade to the 32gb, might only need the entry level 16gb. I wish the Android tablets were further along in their development cycle but at this point they seem a bit unproven to me. Certainly the iPad has significantly more apps available but that gap will narrow over time.

I will still travel with my quite capable HP laptop for work but most of the time I only use that for email access and websurfing when in a hotel.

Any iPad users here that would like to share how they use theirs? I'd like some idea of the apps; good and bad. Thoughts?

Mostly in bed and around the house as a casual web browser. I don't really use it as a tool.

What most intrigues me is the HDMI port which will allow me to rent from itunes and hook it up to my TV. Our Cable On-Demand service blows so this could be a nice alternative.

The iPad 1's price is about to drop off as early adopters upgrade. Now would be a really good time to get the first iPad. That said, the second iPad looks really interesting. The processor is faster, the graphics are upgraded, and Safari has faster java which means it will be better for web surfing. The new cover looks to be designed really well, although it does seem overpriced. I wish they'd finally just break down and put a USB port on it, though, for expanded memory and attaching to peripherals. I'd also like to know if they upgraded the RAM.

I adore the Safari, Calendar, Contacts, Mail, and iWork apps the most, by far. To say that they're really well designed and have intuitive UIs would be a big understatement. Netflix for iPad is outstanding, Epicurious is wonderful, and the NYT and NPR are both great. I've tried RSS apps, but honestly Google Reader in Safari is my favorite. Bloomberg is good for tracking financial information. Pandora is irreplaceable. Alien Blue is outstanding if you're a Redditor. And Kayak is good for traveling.

Don't they have a USB port adapter? Or does the camera adapter not allow you to plug in memory cards, GPS adapters, and web cams (not needed for ipad2)?

I wonder what the 3G data plan will get you except the freedom from using your home wifi. And I'm not sure if you can d/l large files or do FaceTime with it yet(I hope you could, but I'm not sure). Or if you are a nomad and don't want to have to hunt down free wifi all the time.

I think it is an improvement over the first one, and at $499 for the wifi one, it might be pretty good.

This is the iPad I have been waiting for... I will be first in line whenever it finally gets released here.

Yeah, the prices for the original are now cheaper. However, the original version did not support CDMA wireless but that is supported with iPad2. I need Verizon as I'll be traveling and it does have a better coverage than AT&T in some of the areas I'll be. Verizon sold the original iPad with their mobile hotspot. A nice workaround, but I really don't need a second piece of gadgetry to carry around with me.

I am definitely getting one when it is released next Friday. No, I am not going to wait in line at an apple store, but order it online.

Not to be a wet blanket, but why not just get a laptop? There are some seriously good devices in the $600-$700 range, and netbooks are easily as portable.

I'm as nerdy as they come, but I don't have and don't plan on buying a tablet. I can't think of a single thing it can do better than one of my existing devices (smartphone, laptop, desktop, media centre).

I think iPads get more battery life than most laptops. Also, laptops don't get iOS.

On the contrary, 8-10 hours of battery life is not the least bit atypical for netbooks, which is what you'd be getting in the same price range as an iPad.

Making a comment about "most laptops" is broad enough to be essentially meaningless. Within the laptop market you have everything from netbooks to full-size ultraportables (think Macbook Air) to the desktop replacements. Battery life on a new pack could range anywhere from 2 to 12 hours. It all depends on what you're looking for.

And personally, I'm not sure I'd claim iOS as an advantage. At best it's a matter of preference.

Multi-touch touchscreen, 3-axis gyro, rear HD video camera, aesthetics, wide range of applications, all of which are built to iPad specs (whereas for a netbook, a lot of programs are built for a more powerful PC), pre-screened applications, one-handed use, e-book reader is far superior to any netbook... I can think of a lot of reasons to get an iPad instead of a netbook.

I agree there isn't all that much different from a laptop. The one main difference is size. I don't need a keyboard. I just want to consume media and use it in my kitchen while I cook. I find an iPhone too small and a laptop too big.

I've heard a lot of them max out at around 8. So the average range being more like 6 to 8.

Use your imagination to make meaning. Picture those little "foldin' computers" as what I'm generally referring to. I'm sure there are laptops that have comparable or even better battery performance than the iPad, but it was my understanding that the iPad was better than most.

As with most things these days, it's not about "overall advantage." It's about what has the most advantages based on your personal user preferences and habits.

I'll grant that not a lot of laptops in that price range are coming with a high-quality webcam. Accelerometers and touchscreens are more or less compensation for not having a proper input method. And one-handed use? Have you actually handled an iPad? You need one hand just to support that bad boy.

Depends on the brand, and often the device. Word on the street is that Asus likes to make bold claims but can't back them up, but that Toshiba and Acer tend to be more reliable. Even at eight hours, I would contend that once you get to that range you're really only appealing to a small subset of users by adding more battery time. When was the last time you were away from AC for ten hours? And when was the last time that you were not only away from AC for ten hours, but also not otherwise engaged and therefore able to fritter the whole period away playing on your iPad or netbook?

That was really more of an aside, but if you want to debate the point I'm game. Taking the entire group of "foldin' computers" and comparing that group as a whole to iPads isn't a fair assessment, because there are so many different laptops built to do so many different tasks. A desktop replacement has extremely powerful and therefore power-hungry hardware. Of course that won't compete with a device that's designed specifically to be mobile. This is why I restricted my comparison to netbooks -- that's specific enough to be meaningful, and if we're comparing the iPad to netbooks (even as we take the entire range) the battery life advantage proves to be not nearly as dramatic.

It's like lumping a Prius in with an SUV and then saying that a Honda Civic is more fuel efficient than hybrids.

Look, I'm not saying don't get an iPad. I mean, yeah, I kind of am. But what I'm really getting at is whether or not what we need individually or as a societal whole is another niche product.

The very concept of tablets is bizarre to me. There are so few situations where I have a need that isn't fulfilled by an existing device that I just can't imagine why anyone would really want to dump another pile of cash on something that, let's face it, very few people have a use for. At least a laptop is a robust device, capable of a wide range of tasks. If you buy yourself a EEE PC you'll probably find things to do with it apart from reading in bed. An iPad, maybe, but quite possibly not.

I don't want to lug a laptop to bed. I do now and I would rather not. I also know I don't want a unitasking Kindle or eReader.

I'm a big Android fan, but the iPad is still the best tablet option on the market. I don't think that will be the case in a year or so, but if I were to get a tablet now it would be the iPad.

I'd also get the iPad 2 rather than the first iPad, in large part because the form factor is significantly better (which includes weighing much less, making one-handed use much more reasonable).

As for my overall opinion, I'm halfway between Martian and the others here. I wouldn't get an iPad as an e-book reader because the Kindle (and others like it) are so ridiculously superior it's not even funny. They're easier on the eyes, more compact, and battery life is so good it's a non-issue. I wouldn't replace my laptop with an iPad either, because for most things my laptop is better and has superior input options.

That doesn't mean I don't see the value in tablets, though. Tablets are superior to smartphones and laptops for casual consumption and, in some cases, personal information management. If I want to browse the web while sitting on the couch, or quickly show a youtube video to some friends, I'd prefer a tablet over the other options. If I want to manage my calendar or to do list, I imagine I'd find a tablet to be the easiest and most intuitive method. Each gadget has its place and excels at some things while doing poorly at others.

Ultimately, my argument against tablets right now is that the convenience they offer isn't worth the price yet. It's the same reason I don't have a Kindle. As great as e-ink e-book readers can be, they're not so great that I can't wait for them to reach the sub-$100 price range (preferably sub-$50). Likewise, tablets aren't so much more convenient than netbooks to justify the missing features and extra $200. Eventually the price will come down, and there will eventually be a worthwhile tablet offering Android or WebOS (both of which are superior to iOS in my opinion), and that's when I'll start to actually consider getting one.

But, if you're someone who wants to get a tablet now and you don't feel like you can wait for the technology to mature more, then get the iPad 2 because it's the best option on the market right now.

I think i'll wait next year to get the iPad2 but soon as the iPad drops I plan to getting one.

I don't see a problem with this if you want to talk about fuel efficiency amongst personal automobiles. We aren't talking about planes or trains or boats, or even industrial vehicles.

I know there are varying uses amongst different foldin' computers. The comparison to all "portable computers" or whatever you want to call them was intentional because everywhere you look, you're going to find "laptops" or "netbooks" or "notebooks" that boast anywhere between 4 to 8 hours of battery life for the most part. Some will have an extended battery option that will get up to 9 or 9.5.

We're essentially talking about portable computers larger than smart phones. The iPad has lots of appeal as a media consumption device because of its size difference, its layout/touch screen, and its OS. I can see how people would appreciate its battery life as well. Try to do a roundup of portable computers that boast anywhere between 9 and 10 hours of battery life, and it will be slim pickin's. It's my understanding that 6 to 8 hours of battery life is "good" for a netbook or laptop.

The iPad device appeals to me from a consumption standpoint, rather than a flexibility or productivity standpoint. I wouldn't get one to replace my Macbook, nor would I expect people to get it to replace their netbooks.

You yourself mentioned you have a smart phone, laptop, desktop, and media centre. That's four different devices. Why is that?

I have a metric crapload of apps on my iPod Touch. I'm constantly downloading from "free app of the day" websites, and even with folders, I'm nearly out of room for the icons on my screens. Some of them have a huge amount of installed data (birding guide, medical research). Despite that, they only add up to 8.9 GB.

So, how much music and movies are you planning to keep on your iPad? That will allow you to decide the capacity you need.

I'm probably going to get one because I've held out on a tablet since the iPad, but damn it's such a minute upgrade. They won't even mention the RAM it has (probably because it has the same ridiculously low 256MB) and it seems like every one of these upgrades could have been included on the original, except maybe the new form factor. It seems like Apple intentionally left those off of the original in order to tout them as "magical" for the second generation.

And Will, touting the cameras as a reason to buy it is ridiculous. They made no mention of the resolution of the back camera and the front facing camera is VGA. Really? VGA?? A low resolution 4:3 display? The iPhone has a resolution that is comparable to this. On specs, the Xoom blows this thing out of the water.

The front camera is intended for Face Time video calling, so it doesn't need to be HD. Whether on Verizon or AT&T, you don't have enough bandwidth for HD video conferencing. The rear camera shoots 720p video, likely using the same camera as the iPhone 4, which is a very, very good camera. As for the specs for the Xoom vs. the iPad 2, the iPad is lighter, it's better looking, it has a lot more applications, and it's second generation, which likely means that there are less bugs to work out. They tie on processor power, (probably) RAM, cell connection, wifi, bluetooth, accelerometer, gyro, battery, and rear camera. Xoom has a bigger resolution, but considering it has the same processor and I believe graphics, that's a trade-off. So no, on specs, the Xoom really isn't better or worse than the iPad 2 in any meaningful way.

The iPad works with my iTunes mp3 organization for sure. All the playlists, cover art, lyrics, metadata,... will just work out of the box.

I'm surprised no 3rd party has made a aluminum keyboard and hinge to convert the iPad into a netbook. Or make they have, I'm not really keeping up with it. I get more use out of a iPod touch or iPhone for what I do.

I think if the iPad gets a good magazine reader (Zinio might work), or if the newspapers figure out how to deliver electronically for at most 25 cents a day or 50 cents for a magazine, then it might be very tempting... Or if it could take the place of my computer on vacation, and s easy enough to travel with, it would be a handy thing to have (if it took the place of maps, gps, guide books, notes, memory card storage, photo viewer,...)

Unless its changed recently, you can't use facetime unless its over wifi. The xooms front camera is 2.0 megapixels. If the camera was 5 megapixels like the niphine they would have said so. Its not. On the same specs they could absolutely have a higher resolution...how is that a negative? 9 times the graphic processing power and twice the processing power? If you are saying that can't handle a higher reslution you are dreaming. It could handle double the current resolution just fine. They are intentionally making it a minor upgrade so that the ipad 3 will be a complete revision.

Aesthetically the xoom and ipad 2 are equal imo.

And ASU, they have foldable keyboard cases and clamshell netbook style cases for the ipad. They don't seem to be very good though. The best seems like the one from zagg.com

Where are you getting that the ipad 2 has the same ram as the xoom? It has not been detailed, which again makes me think its going to be the same 256MBs just like the original. That's nowhere near the xooms 1GB.

While AT&T and Verizon aren't offering Facetime over their 3G/4G networks yet, it's just a matter of time. I believe the iPhone was designed with non-wifi video chatting in mind, thus the VGA. And the VGA works just fine for what it does. How is higher resolution a negative? It's not. I said it was a trade-off, and I believe it is. Running a higher resolution screen means using a bit more video processing power, which theoretically means slightly less performance. The trade-off for that is the larger screen. iPad 2 has a lower resolution, but identical video processing power, and as such is theoretically capable of a bit more. Thus, it's a trade-off. Back when I was only using my Mac mini, I went between a 19" and 22" screen and the performance difference was noticeable. It's not that the iPad 2's hardware can't handle more resolution, it's just that with the resolution they have, this new hardware makes it even faster still.

Aesthetics are subjective, I'll grant you, but it would seem that the iPad 2's appearance is getting good reviews from tech publications. Most of Apple's products are well reviewed for aesthetics, as it's clearly a priority for them.

Facetime's wifi restriction is a software limitation, and not imposed by the carriers. I suppose it's possible that Apple could release a new version of Facetime that supports video calling over mobile networks, but that's pure speculation.

And yes, there are ways to make it work over mobile carrier networks on a jailbroken device. These are hacks however that fool facetime into thinking the mobile network is actually wifi.

Baraka, I have four devices because each one fulfills a specific purpose, and that was kind of my point. My desktop is a purpose-built hardcore gaming machine, the media centre is designed to integrate with my home theatre system (such as it is), the laptop allows me to do light duty surfing from the couch or the bed (as well as being a work machine, since it's running Fedora) and my Nexus One gives me internet access and some very light computing (mostly via SSH) from nearly anywhere. Each one has it's uses, and I use each one at different times. It's rare for me to go more than a day without spending time on each device.

I don't see a place for an iPad in any of this. And, in fact, I'll take it a step further -- I don't see anything an iPad can do that can't be done better by something else.

And that's why I don't recommend them. They're hyped up to hell and gone, but at the end of the day, they're just not that useful -- especially not at a $500+ price point.

I'd actually be interested to hear from an actual iPad owner. Any takers? How long have you had it? What do you use it for? How much time would you say you spend with it in a given week? Getting answers to those questions from people with much more practical experience than I would be most enlightening, I think.

I think it comes down to user experience. It's easy to see something as not being very useful when you either don't have a use for them or haven't used them. I feel the same way about cars.

I have an Ipad and I find using it for productivity very annoying. The interface for productivity is less than stellar and it has been demoted to a portable game machine. I'm probably going to get a xoom since my work is going to subsidize $200 off the price for me. I think Chrome and a much improved gmail client will help the productivity aspect a lot. I always here about how great apples interface is but i'm always finding myself frustrated by it because I can't do what I want. In fact I haven't even used my Ipad in a couple months now.

Can you expand upon that? What apps? How is it annoying?

1) Web browsing has no tabs, which makes switching between websites a change.

2) I'm not fond of the email clients interface and I wish it was organized better and had better threading/conversations.

3) Switching between apps is ok but if you switch between too many apps your other app will have been killed. (This is likely a function of the pitifully low RAM in the ipad, the ipad 2 may have more but i doubt it since they didn't say so).

4) No Word/Excel/Outlook/Powerpoint apps...

5) Keyboard is annoying. I often find it doing things I don't expect.

6) Widgets would be nice. Widgets provide a method to have a screen where you can check information really really quickly for multiple programs. On the ipad you have to open each app individually to check if there is anything new.

7) Notifications on iOS suck really really bad. And I mean really really bad.


Now everyone always talks about how many good apps there are on the ipad but I have to admit I haven't found that many good apps. There are great games but just not good productivity apps. I hoped that the ipad would take over many of the functions my laptop does but it didn't. I like to multi task and easily switch between those tasks (at this very moment I have 7 websites open, a note pad, a pdf, and google talk open). Apple just does not have a good multi-tasking system set up yet.

In the end the ipad feels like it is a tablet with a phone OS. A tablet is not a phone and there is no reason to think that a tablet with a 10" screen should have the same interface as a phone with a 3" screen.

I hope this helps.

Yes it does, thank you. Perfectly good points.

Yup, it's all restrictions by apple. Justifying a crappy resolution camera as being for 3G when the people who designed the product don't allow it to be used on 3G makes no sense to me.

And, Will, I have used Facetime on my macbook pro with my roommate's iPhone4 just to see the quality and it's pretty bad as well as with my girlfriends new iPod. A higher res front facing camera wouldn't be difficult at all.

A higher resolution would not have much of an impact on the performance with those specs. Nothing is going to be pushing the limits of what the iPad2 can do...except in relation to multitasking because if they didn't add more RAM, multitasking is going to be terrible like in the current iPad. I mean seriously, the iPhone has 512MB of RAM. You think 256MB is enough for a tablet? 1GB minimum is required in my opinion.

Rekna makes plenty of good points about the iPad as a productivity tool. Safari is a terrible web browser.

That's pretty much how I feel. If I'm spending that much money I'd rather get a laptop or netbook. As it is, I think it's main function is for viewing media even for that you run into limitations because the codec support is probably limited.

Does iOS have anything similar to swype for text inputting?

You boys at Cupertino have really outdone yourselves. The same amount of RAM as a phone AND the same (terrible) cameras as an iPod. Magical!

iPad 2 review -- Engadget

Did it even need more RAM? It performs much better than the previous generation, and it blows the iPhone 4 out of the water (despite the iPhone having twice the RAM at 512 MB).

From the article you linked:
Would more RAM make a significant enough difference? Would it be worth the extra cost?

I guess Apple doesn't really care about future proofing their products since they have new ones every year, but are you kidding me? Multitasking is terrible on the iPad and it closes down programs constantly that are supposed to stay running in the background. More RAM would help that immensely seeing as how that's how background programs are stored. Bringing the RAM up to modern day standards just seems obvious and I don't get why people are saying it doesn't need it when it obviously does. And why do people constantly defend Apple when they obviously are making decisions that shaft their customers? Every single thing that is in the iPad 2 could have been in the original and they aren't even making the new one up to standards so they can use those upgrades for next year's release.

You think it's fine to have a dumbed down phone OS, RAM that phones have equivalent to and cameras that are worse than a phone that has been out for nearly a year on a "next gen" tablet? I guess Apple has a different vision for what a tablet should be than I do.


1GB of ram is not expensive, at all. They could have done 512MB of memory last year at the same price point and 1GB this year at the same price point. Especially since they are using cheap, chinese parts and manufacturing. Are you saying that you don't want more headroom to keep programs running in the background in order to have real multi-tasking unlike what Apple pretends is multitasking?

The quote you linked pretty much just talks about the graphics and processing power not about RAM.

I haven't used the thing, but I don't think it's designed to be a multitasking powerhouse and I doubt most of the users are bent on using it that way. It's been repeated here, but the iPad isn't a productivity device; it's a consumption device. In my opinion, anyway.

I know it talks about the processing power, but the outcome is based on the total computing power, which includes RAM and the processor.

Also, you're talking about the RAM as though they could easily just drop another chip in it like nothing. Isn't it a bit difficult and costly to develop a small processor such as the A5 with integrated memory?

The iPad needs to be sleek and compact, while maintaining a large enough screen size, to compete as it does. This costs a lot of money to produce. I don't doubt for a second that the markup on Apple products is likely quite high compared to others in the industry. However, when considering their expected markups and their expected pricing and their expected performance from a shareholder's point of view, to "simply add more RAM" would have likely required a noticeably higher price point.

If the new generation performance nearly doubles compared to the first (and if people were already satisfied or impressed to begin with), why throw more RAM at it and needlessly add to the price at this juncture?

Also, although I'm not sure how much of this is official or confirmed, but there's this bit from Wikipedia's page on the new Apple A5 in the iPad2:
So unless the article is wrong: the iPad2 does indeed have more RAM at 512 MB.

Yeah, I said it has the same amount of RAM as a phone. The iPhone has 512MB of ram. It should be 1GB. They could easily do 1GB and still maintain their price point, they are choosing not to in order to make an even larger profit (which I guess I can't blame them for but damn, they say they want to make the best possible product for consumers). Like I said before, I guess my vision of what a tablet should be is very incompatible with Apple's vision of what a tablet should be. It's pretty much a toy to browse the web and play games off the app store, not a device for being productive.

Yeah, that's how I view it too. I would only use it for browsing, reading e-books, watching movies, etc. However, twice the processing power and up to 9 times the graphics power up from a device that people had already been calling "zippy" is a decent improvement if you ask me.

This debate reminds me of car shopping. The sales guy kept wanting to tell me about horsepower and torque and point at things on the engine. I'm not interested. Let's put it on the highway, and let's see if I can merge into traffic on an uphill.

Same here. If my MacBook ever dies, I'll probably get an iPad to replace it. I'd still be able to play with photos, music, work on my resume and budget (minor word processing and spreadsheet stuff) while increasing the portability and affordability. I've played with some of the first, and even that one would probably easily fulfill my needs.