-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Apple's iPad 2 event | March 2
- Thread starter giga
- Start date
- Status
Opus Angelorum
Member
If the screen is the same resolution then it's dead in the water. I can't be the only one who thinks the current iPad screen is very soft looking.
Opus Angelorum said:
it's a low res screen by iphone 4 standards but leaving it as-is won't cripple sales. So, no, I don't think that it's "dead in the water" if it keeps the same screen.
that's not to say that everyone needs to run out and get one. if pixel density is super important to you, then it's totally understandable not to get one now.
Big-ass Ramp
hella bullets that's true
LCfiner said:
IS IT THE YEAR OF LINUX YET
Neuromancer
Member
A higher res screen would be nice but let's not delude ourselves, this thing will do just fine.Opus Angelorum said:
Opus Angelorum
Member
dream said:
Well I should have clarified. In regards to my decision for buying one, having the same resolution makes it an absolute no.
If Apple follows what they did with 3GS and iPhone 4, then we can expect iPad 2 to have a capacity bump and better internal specs, with the iPad 3 only seeing another minor spec bump but with retina display to steal the show, and keeping the same capacity is iPad 2.badcrumble said:
Well going again by past events... the iPhone 4 was in stores 17 days after its event. Going by that, we can expect to see iPad 2 out around the third week of March. A week is an interesting thought though. From the time the iPad 2 is announced until it comes out Apple will just be burning up potential sales as people stop buying the current model. They'll want to get it out as close to the announcement as possible.stupei said:
Either way I feel comfortable saying that we're under a month away from seeing iPad 2 in stores.
badcrumble
Member
I'm praying that it's out by the 18th, because I'm hopping on a plane to Minnesota for a week on the 19th.Carlisle said:
Can't see any reason for upping the resolution yet. They'd obviously go with the retina terminology, which would boost it to a ridiculous resolution in comparison to everything else out there.
Yes it would be nice, but seems a bit unnecessary and impractical price wise at the moment. It would need a significant spec bump all round to drive a resolution that high as well. So very unlikely to see it in this revision, and don't buy the rumours of a third revision later in the year. The yearly update works well for Apple.
The only thing that makes a retina display a *slight* possibility is the invite. The date, the huge 2, looks like they are going for iPad 2 branding. If they did that, it would mean expectations of the device are going to be a bit more than just a camera and behind the scenes spec bump. A retina display would obviously make it a lot more 'worthy' of the name iPad 2.
Yes it would be nice, but seems a bit unnecessary and impractical price wise at the moment. It would need a significant spec bump all round to drive a resolution that high as well. So very unlikely to see it in this revision, and don't buy the rumours of a third revision later in the year. The yearly update works well for Apple.
The only thing that makes a retina display a *slight* possibility is the invite. The date, the huge 2, looks like they are going for iPad 2 branding. If they did that, it would mean expectations of the device are going to be a bit more than just a camera and behind the scenes spec bump. A retina display would obviously make it a lot more 'worthy' of the name iPad 2.
Looking to upgrade from my 16gb, but still the upgrades have to be significant. Resolution bump will get me to buy a new one. Better CPU/RAM, eh, probably not. Front facing camera? LOL.
I really want to know what the hell they have against SD cards. Most of their money comes from the iTunes store, and many people fill their devices and don't want to manage apps all the time. I'd probably spend 3x as much on the app store if I could just chuck another micro SD in there rather than wrestle with that cantankerous motherfucker known as Windows iTunes.
I really want to know what the hell they have against SD cards. Most of their money comes from the iTunes store, and many people fill their devices and don't want to manage apps all the time. I'd probably spend 3x as much on the app store if I could just chuck another micro SD in there rather than wrestle with that cantankerous motherfucker known as Windows iTunes.
badcrumble
Member
Most of their money comes from hardware sales, not from the iTunes Store.VALIS said:
Opus Angelorum
Member
Tobor said:
The competitors to the iPad 2 will be :
Motorola Xoom - 10.1" @ 1280 x 800
Blackberry PlayBook - 7" @ 1024 x 600 (higher pixel density)
HTC Flyer - 7" @ 1024 x 600 (higher pixel density)
LG G-Slate - 8.9" 1280 - 720
Amongst others. I do realise however that the iPad 2 will probably outsell of them combined.
Dreams-Visions
Member
What I'd love to see:
Pressure sensitive screen (for serious writing/drawing)
512mb ram, which would solve all browser problems
I'm kinda indifferent to other hardware bumps. It's pretty great as-is.
Pressure sensitive screen (for serious writing/drawing)
512mb ram, which would solve all browser problems
I'm kinda indifferent to other hardware bumps. It's pretty great as-is.
badcrumble said:
...Really? Are you sure about that? Could've sworn I read the opposite. Hardware usually has such slim margins to begin with. I realize some of that cost is subsidized by phone carriers, but I'd still guess a cavernous store filled with literally millions of movies, mp3s, TV shows, apps and etc. is their bread and butter.
Even if what you say is true, I still don't understand what they have against detachable storage. If they're so desperate to keep their system closed, make a proprietary card-type system then, I don't care.
VALIS said:
Apple have always been a hardware company first. The software marriage exists to drive the hardware sales. The AppStore could change things though, as they stand to make loads of money from other people making iOS apps, be it from the subscription fees, commission, and hardware sales of developers and consumers.
Why is no one talking about 3G vs 4G? Did I miss something? Is it not possible that there will be a 4G iPad 2 given that both Verizon and AT&T have introduced their "4G" networks?
BTW: got 400 bucks for my wifi 16gb LAST NIGHT. Epic win on my part. Hope buyer doesn't rage on me next week.
BTW: got 400 bucks for my wifi 16gb LAST NIGHT. Epic win on my part. Hope buyer doesn't rage on me next week.
Not that we're all pretty certain that it's not gonna have a high resolution screen, can I just say...
What if it does actually get one!
Get those hype juices running!
So I take it we'll be getting the release of 4.3 on that day too. If O2 want to charge me for personal hotspots *shakes fist*
What if it does actually get one!
Get those hype juices running!
So I take it we'll be getting the release of 4.3 on that day too. If O2 want to charge me for personal hotspots *shakes fist*
brotkasten
Member
Not saying it's not true in this case, but what was their excuse for the lack of 3G in the original iPhone?mrkgoo said:
Seraphinianus
Banned
Zeth said:
4G isn't widespread enough. Apple will save that for when it can be a bullet point that has a lot of impact. Right now it's not a big deal.
brotkasten said:
Probably a lot of reasons (not excuses), the main one probably being battery life. Battery tech and low-power parts improve all the time, but at that time, I'm guessing the power consumption with 3G vs battery capacity just didn't meet their high bar they like to have for their portable devices. I've found that they prioritise this a lot, and will sacrifice a lot to improve it. Apple make a lot of really consumer-oriented design choices - more people are likely to complain about poor battery life than to complain about streaming video faster, to being on the cutting edge of mobile download speeds.
Also, the original iPhone was not released all that widely. The first iPhone for many countries was the 3G - and even here, 3G isn't that widespread, dropping to the next one down in a lot of places.
Bottom line is, they tend not to implement certain tech (when it isn't their own they're trying to implement), unless they have a good reason to. That reason isn't necessarily the same, nor is it always a consistent philosophy. For example, things might not be implemented for licensing, political, power-consumption, space, product-path, cost (and not just strict cost - obviously cost to benefit/profit ratios) etc etc, any or more of the above.
joeyjoejoeshabadoo
Member
It's called eBay.FairyD said:
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
- Poll
- Poll