Back to Article

  • solipsism - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I was hoping they would have increased the brightness levels. It's always been too low for my tastes. Still, if I had a choice between a brighter display and double the resolution I would chose the latter. Now that it's done I'm hoping for a brighter display next year.

    PS: I've noticed that it fairs better in the sunlight than the previous model even without using an extra bright backlight to achieve that goal.
  • mavere - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    The new iPad seems to have mitigated glass reflection issues.
  • Owls - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Why is the PPI relevant when ipad is still using a 9.7 inch screen? Why don't other tablet makers use a 9 or 9.5 inch screen with the same resolution and boast about how revolutionary it is? Reply
  • DorkMan - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    What I want to know is how much real-world improvement there is.

    Doubling the PPI in both axes is fine if it makes an obvious difference and doesn't cost much in terms of other factors such as weight, heat, fragility, and a host of other variables.

    Otherwise, it's a plus only for nerds who need to justify Apple under any circumstances and who will be happy to whip out a 10x magnifying lens to show the unimpressed just how sharp an icon really is.

    So, please, an objective assessment. Don't be like Mossberg of the Wall Street Journal who can be counted on to laud everything Apple does while condemning with faint praise everything the competition does.
  • michael2k - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    Of course it is. Anand said so:
    "The old iPad's 1024 x 768 resolution was fairly bothersome when it came to reading text on web pages or books. Most Android tablets standardizing on 1280 x 800 offered an advantage in that respect, albeit not delivering significantly higher pixel density. The new iPad completely resolves this issue."
  • vishal_ec - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    hopefully the rest of the benchmarks are coming soon. Sunspider, and others that test cpu/ram etc.
    Also, what i think would be also another useful set of benchmarks that would mean a lot more to end users would be say loading of websites (pick top5 and average them). a few popular games performances. launch times for a few popular apps.
  • MonkeyPaw - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Yeah, I think it's going to need that fancy GPU Apple has been touting. 3.1M pixels versus 786K? Will it have enough memory bandwidth? I guess that's for reviews to say. :) Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Browser results are already up on reviews from The Verge and Engadget, like expected they are unchanged. Its using the same two Cortex A9 cores after all. Only the GPU and RAM are changed. Reply
  • Lucian Armasu - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I want to see GPU benchmarks for their native resolution, too. While it's certainly nice to compare how fast a GPU is in theory, what really matters is how fast the *device* itself is.

    So I'd like to see how the new GPU fares when it has to push 4x the amount of pixels. That's why I want it benchmarked at its own 2048x1536 resolution instead of the fixed 720p one that's usually in benchmarks here.
  • Fanfoot - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    What I'd like to see is more details about the display, in particular measuring things like power draw compared to the display on the iPad 2. It appears that the new display takes something like 70% more energy for the same brightness. Which is why the battery is 70% bigger. Is this something that is temporary or will each advance increase the power draw again? Will Asus' upcoming Full HD Transformer Prime have to have a similarly beefed up battery to avoid suffering much worse battery life than its 720p parent? Is there a display technology on the horizon that can ameliorate this power draw any time soon, while still achieving the new higher resolution?

    How about the battery? Sounds like the battery density on this iPad is NOT any better than the one in the iPad 2, but is in fact just 70% bigger and heavier. Can you confirm these numbers? How is it the new iPad isn't even heavier and thicker than it is? Did Apple weight reduce the frame a lot? Do something with the bonding on the glass to save weight? Or what? Are there any consequences to this like reduced stiffness or hardiness when dropped? Is the heat people are noticing not just because the A5X generates more heat but also because the aluminum is thinner?
  • vishal_ec - Tuesday, March 27, 2012 - link

    So any word on rest of the benchmarks ? Reply
  • ol1bit - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the quick write up on the display. The resolution is out of this world! I current have a 24inch Dell monitor 1920x1200 for my workstation that you reviewed a few years ago. Amazing, the Ipad3 blows it away with a better resolution at smaller than 1/3 the size and still has 10 hour battery life!

    I am now contemplating my first tablet purchase, just because of this screen. I've never in my life bought an Apple product yet, but this might make me do it. I currently have the HTC Rezound, which has one of the best resolutions for a smart phone, and blows away my original droid in most all areas other than screen hardness, it scratches way to easy.

    At my 46 year old age, the 4.3 inch screen just isn't good for watching movies or reading a book, and as much as I like the sound of the fire, the better the text is on the screen, the easier it will be for reading.

    Some people think Apple didn't go far enough, but for me the screen eclipses everything in the world, and does it portable!

    Thanks again!
  • mcnabney - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I don't know why it wasn't included as a comparison, but there will be a 1920x1200 Asus Transformer out shortly. The DPI won't be quite as high as the iPad, but it will be fairly close. Reply
  • WaltFrench - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    How would AnandTech review unavailable products? There's ALWAYS something newer/faster/better coming next year.

    Except that sometimes, any specific item does not. I suppose Asus is in the game for some time to come, but it sure seems like < 10% of the tablets announced in early 2011 ever made it close to retail.

    Only then will the issue shift to the overall usability/attractiveness of the total OS/hardware/retail/service/app experience. The Transformer line has gotten some attention for having an excellent display, but now that the display will be “almost as good,” the other factors will come into sharper relief.
  • Penti - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Actually you could have compared it with previous 7-inch hardware, a Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7 Plus with 1280x800 is 196 DPI. A Huawei MediaPad 7" 1280x800 is about 215 DPI. If comparing it with other sized screens where that relevant here. Of course we have had 15.0" 2048x1536 screens on laptops too there is also high res 22" screens for medical use with 3840x2400, that's 204 DPI on a desktop. That is actually retina based on Apples calculation of screen distance if you like to call it that. I don't think you need to hit that sweet spot though. High-dpi is nice but there is more to consider in most cases. So of course it's more to look at in the world of high-res screens. Reply
  • xenol - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I have an LG spectrum, one of the few 720p 4.5" phones sporting a PPI of something like 326. Reply
  • sonicmerlin - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You should be aware that iOS doesn't have text reflow in the browser. A couple browsers allow you to increase font size, but that only works on simple web sites. Often times it completely breaks the layout and/or causes lines to overlap.

    So if you're planning on doing a lot of web browsing with less than perfect website, the iPad might not be the device for you.
  • jontech - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    The Screen is a Godsend. I always hated looking at poor saturated photos I took, which looked beautiful on my Dell u2410
    Now they look good on both :)

    Now if we could get Apple to make a 4k monitor :)

    or Dell :)
  • Griswold - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Neither of the two is going to make a 4k monitor before those who work the real magic (the panel makers) are ready for it at a reasonably production price.

    Besides, you'll likely see it first from the highest end of the spectrum, like Eizo or NEC, not apple or dell.
  • mcnabney - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    IBM released a 4K monitor over a decade ago. Reply
  • Bragabondio - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Impressions from the store
    Went to apple store, looked at the thingy and at first it was hard to see the difference with the ipad 2 (something that was mentioned in a couple of other reviews including the one at At closer look the display is indeed better but is not something that blows you away (I am currently using galaxy note with similar ppi of 260. Also I should mention that I prefer the Amoled as it provides incredible black and does not have the issue of shinning near the edges that is common for many IPS displays).

    the new Ipad is still an Ipad
    The operating system is the same as the one in ipad 2 and feels incredible dated compared to the latest android. For less sophisticated users I guess that is fine but if you are advanced user and do not want to be locked in the apple ecosystem / playing cat and mouse with apple (jailbreak) I do not see that much value in buying ipad 3.

    To address the issue with gaming - games on the tables both android and ios are a couple of years or more behind the ones offered on a PC and unless you are how to put it more gently: young physically or at hearth I would not advise wasting time with the tablet games. The simpler ones (angry birds etc.) are better for playing while traveling in the metro where something, like your phone or smaller tablet like galaxy tab 7.7 or note (5.3 inch screen) are generally much more useful being lighter and more pocket friendly. Considering more advanced games , i.e shadowgun etc. they are so behind their PC counterparts that almost seem like a journey back in time.

    I am not a big fan of reading on LCD add the size of the ipad (9.7 inches) and now the added weight do not help its cause. Kindle 4 at $77 seems better match for my needs.

    What good is tablet for?
    Well apart from getting the techno blogs excited I guess they have some use :) In my case it ismostly reading news and e-mails and occasionally playing a movie and listening to podcasts/music. I also tried a couple of games and books. I would gladly substitute firepower for portability .

    It was reported that Safary is automatically resizing down all images if large than 1024 to 768, could you confirm.
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Good post. I think I would go along with most of what you say - which is why I haven't got a tablet.

    Should note that the Galaxy Note screen is Pentile though - so the PPI figure is misleading, given that it has a third fewer sub-pixels. Also it's not strictly comparable because it's a smaller screen which you would hold closer than a tablet.
  • Griswold - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Pretty fabricated "this is why I dont want to buy an ipad because I dont like apple" post.

    Nonsense about the screen, nonsense about the OS and why you think the various hackjobs of android are better based on your opinion on what or who is a sophisticated user.

    Nonsense about tablet gaming - why the fuck do you compare it to PC gaming? Are you nuts?

    On to reading. While reading on LCD is certainly a matter of taste, you bring up the size of the screen and then recommend a kindle? Reality check please. Weight has not been an issue since the ipad2. Really not.
  • mcnabney - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Eh, the points were valid. AMOLED does do excellent blacks. But really, Apple is pushing the entire market into higher resolutions. How can this be anything but good. The iPad3 display is gorgeous! I would point out that the 1920x1200 Asus Transformer that is about to come out might look just as good. It has slightly lower DPI, but has better blacks and has a high luminance option for daylight which iPad3 doesn't have.

    iOS vs Android is a personal decision. I prefer Android too, but iOS is still a great platform.

    iOS OWNS tablet gaming. You just can't complain about it like that.

    I think the point of reading was that the light emitting LCD display is much harder on the eyes when reading than a Kindle's reflective screen (not the Fire). I agree, but a color LCD display can do so much MORE than a grayscale reflective display.

    And the simple 7" Kindle reader he is talking about weighs only a third of what the iPad3 does. If you only care about reading, iPad effectively weighs a ton compared to the basic Kindle reader.
  • WaltFrench - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Regards reading: the single objective study I've seen puts the old iPad a smidgeon (not statistically significant) ahead of the basic Kindle, both less good than paper but far ahead of PCs. That's speed/comprehension for extended reading.

    My take is that the Kindle's MUCH higher resolution is offset by its lower contrast, forcing the brain to work harder to associate the pattern with a word.

    Newsrooms and other all-LCD environments have dozens or hundreds of people all working productively without eyestrain, etc. These devices would of course be properly set up re: brightness, room lighting, glare, etc. I can't imagine why LCDs should automatically be thought of as worse for reading; there must be a reason. The basics of eyestrain from overworking the eye, plus how easily the brain interprets what it sees, seem to favor a good hi-res, high-contrast display.
  • AnandReader1999 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    When reading off of electronic devices we subject our eyes to massive amounts of light. The light is projected directly into the eye. This is damaging to the eyes. It may be the medium of convenience but its still extremely bad for us.

    A kindle (and other true e-ink readers) don't project light. You need light to read them just like a book. The screen doesn't reflect the light like the 'pads' or monitors do either so you don't suffer glare issues (also harmful).

    Anybody that busy an iPad to read books deserves exactly what they get.
    Ignorance is in abundance in this world and things like the iPad/Apple ensure it stays that way.

    Is the iPad3 nice. You bet!
    Did the Apple users think the last iPads (1 & 2) were great just the way they were? You bet.
    And Apple users wonder why they are called iSheep?!?!
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    "Is the iPad3 nice. You bet!
    Did the Apple users think the last iPads (1 & 2) were great just the way they were? You bet.
    And Apple users wonder why they are called iSheep?!?!"

    Really. What do you think defines "think they were just great the way they were"? The fact that people bought them rather than bitching about how they are not perfect. I, for example
    - bought an iPad1 to read PDFs with.
    - then SKIPPED an iPad2 because it's screen (the part I cared most about) was not upgraded (yet).
    Go read the comments regarding iPad2 when it came out. There are bazillions of "iSheep" who said exactly the same thing --- for our particular needs, we'll wait for the better screen.

    So, in your world, we should not buy anything until it is perfect? Because I hate to tell you this, than Android phone in your pocket is going to have a faster CPU next year, it's going to have faster WiFi, it's going to have faster LTE, it's going to have a better battery etc etc. What's your argument regarding all these improvements? Please, Samsung, don't give me a better battery --- the fact that I bought your phone this year proves I have zero interest in buying a better phone!?
  • moiaujapon - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Whether light is reflected or not is irrelevant. It is still light carrying information to the eyes. The intensity is important in terms of damaging the eyes, but the intensity of light coming from these screens is no where near approaching a damaging level, as proven time and time again by empirical research. Reading in the dark, reading in a moving car, or sitting too close to television - none of these things will damage your eyes. On the other hand, you can burn your retinas looking at sunlight reflected off a snowy field.

    Apple users are, in general, under no illusion that the products they are using are perfect and lacking room for improvement. However, they are by-and-large considerably more satisfied with the products they used, relative to users of other products. Likewise, most have direct experience with non-Apple products, and the frequently lower level of satisfaction such experiences yielded.

    I took my 'new iPad' back because my old iPad 2 turned out to be sufficiently satisfactory (the marginal increase in satisfaction wasn't large enough to justify the cost for me). You said 'Apple users think the last iPads (1 & 2) were great just the way they were.' That is true, generally speaking, but your next sentence implies that you extend your logic to the point of believing that 'Apple users think the last iPads were... without need of improvement (and thus iSheep).' Therein lies the rub, so to speak.
  • commonmind - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Most of your comment passes the intelligent response checklist, except for the part in which you insinuate that "sophisticated" users would somehow be deterred by the iPad's "archaic" operating system.

    Pardon the self-validation here, but I own a design, development and hosting company, and spend the majority of my day writing code, managing dozens of sites remotely using SSH, communicating with clients via email, messaging applications and VOIP. I am proficient in Javascript, PHP, SQL, HTML 5, CSS3, jQuery, Unix, and spend a good majority of my free time learning how to become a more responsible and efficient coder.

    Is it possible that your attempts to generalize the tablet user-base are counter-intuitive to the very point of the tablet market itself?

    If I required more sophistication, I'd use a more sophisticated device. Do I want a tablet that I can use Drush with? No. Does the Apple ecosystem bother me, absolutely not. Because I am unsophisticated? No, because I am acclimated.

    I have been both a hardcore PC enthusiast, modding cases in my garage, pushing the boundaries of overclocking and using Rainmeter to create extremely customized desktop experiences; as well as an Apple consumer and user of Apple products in the professional space. I enjoy Android tablets, right alongside my iPad -- why must I be segregated because I choose to use my tablet for reading, consuming internet media and light gaming -- features you shrug off simply because you don't find them particularly useful, or suited to your tastes?
  • cjs150 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I will admit upfront I am not an Apple fan - I hate the closed garden approach but sometimes even I need to defend Apple.

    The OS is designed for the average user not for the techno geek. Not only does it work well but it has opened up the user base for tablets. I have heard story after story of the very young (and I mean under 2years old) being able to immediately understand and use the Ipad as well as the "more mature" - ok my mum who is sufficiently technically illiterate that actually turning on the computer is almost beyond her.

    The OS works well. It could be better but it is certainly no worse than current Android tablets.

    However, as for using it as a e-reader, weight does matter. Kindle works wonderfully because you can hold for hours on end. But it has to be remembered that the Kindle is a one application only device, the Ipad is not. Ipad does a reasonable job as e-reader but if all you want is ability to while away hours reading, then the kindle is a much superior device for you
  • B3an - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Why have you left out the 1080p version of the Asus Transformer Prime in the pixel density comparison?

    You always seem bias towards Apple.
  • hieuhef - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Hey, where can I buy one of those? Oh, it's not out yet. Reply
  • Subzero0000 - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Really like your profile pic with the comment, priceless XD Reply
  • ArmanUV - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    stupid anandtech fanboys didn't even bother to go forward in time and review the infinity pad.
  • mcnabney - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    And it isn't really 1080p. It is 1200p (1920x1200) and much less letterboxy. Reply
  • KoolAidMan1 - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    B3an post Reply
  • Origin32 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    [tinfoilhat] because then Apple wouldn't look this good now would they [/tinfoilhat]

    Back on topic: even though this screen looks promising I think I'd rather wait for higher-res PC screens. (with 3D support)

    Furthermore, I just played around with an iPhone 4S for an hour yesterday and I really found it quite frustrating to work with.
    What's that? You want a wifi toggle? Mwuhahaha no can do sir. iOS seriously lacked a lot of options that I like to have, especially compared to my rooted Galaxy S, but even on its stock rom it was more versatile than that. Also, I did not find the user experience as smooth as everyone keeps telling me. Sure it's a little better than on Android, but the lack of a big fat back or menu/multitask button really took that advantage away. Apps open faster but it takes longer to navigate them.
    Also, I found that most of the onscreen buttons (back most notably) to be way to small and rather hard to hit. And I managed to crash the browser unintendedly in under 10 minutes.

    So this is useful in the long run, but the iPad's really not for me. Let's just hope display manufacturers actually start to innovate and start building 4k2k pc-monitors. Cause I want 'em and as the iPad 3 proves, it's perfectly possible to build them.
  • Kvaern - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Inquiring minds want to know how on earth you managed to spend an hour with an Iphone 4S and not find the the big fat back/multitasking button and the wifi toggle?

    Superuser you are not.
  • Graag - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I guess "Settings>Wifi>Off" is too complicated... Reply
  • Mystermask - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    " with an iPhone 4S for an hour [...] but the iPad's really not for me."

    I recommend testing an iPad when considering an iPad. Everything else is stupid. Unlike Android, tablet usability is much better on an iPad because many apps are made with the iPad form factor in mind. This goes right down to basic OS usability e. g. 5 finger gestures on the iPad (app switching, task manager, closing, etc.) which do not exist on the iPhone (5 finger gestures are not suitable for smaller screens) and to the primary apps (layout adaption to bigger screens, etc.)

    But I guess you didn't want to hear that, did you? Your posting actually reads like a typical troll post of the kind "I know X and now expect Y to be exactly like that and if it isn't, it must be bad (and in case Y is better, I will find some other points that make my choice for X the right choice for me and the rest of the world)."
  • Griswold - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I hear theres a bargain sale of ropes. Now all you need is a closet to hang yourself in. Reply
  • Azsen - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Should be macro lens. Reply
  • Solandri - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    For being the first (and only) review I've found which took pictures where you can actually see the pixels and do a real comparison. All the other pictures I've seen have been a pixellated iPad 2 screen vs. a perfect (pixel-less) iPad 3 screen. Useless for comparison. Reply
  • xytc - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    But it's not like Apple is making their own displays, they just bought them from Samsung and LG, and the same is with other components inside iPad and iPhone.
    Those that call themselves Apple fans are in fact fans of Samsung, LG and Foxconn because that's what Apple products are made from. hahahaha
  • Graag - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    And people who are fans of Frank Lloyd Wright are really fans of Bob Jones, his stone mason, since that's who actually made the houses. Reply
  • snuuggles - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Who's a fan of that hack? Falling water literally almost fell into the water.

    Modern architects=FAIL

    It's funny, it occurs to me that all the negative attributes people ascribe to Jobs fit perfectly on the starchitects such as Ghery and Koolhaas: arrogant a**holes that force thier artistic vision on a public so stupified by "new" they don't understand that "new" doesn't mean "better", or even "good."
  • mcnabney - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Not a good comparison.

    A better example is that if we are talking about the latest airplanes, while the airline does have a lot of say in how the interior is designed, most of what the airplane does is designed by either Boeing or Airbus - and not Delta or United. So if you are impressed by the new technology, look at who designed the components themselves, not who gave designed the case to hold those components.

    The only part Apple really had any role in engineering was the A5X, and only because they bought the ARM-licensed company that designs those chips.
  • Graag - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    No, that's a horrible comparison.

    Apple *designed* the iPad, just like Boeing or Airbus designed their planes.

    The iPad is made of parts from hundreds of suppliers, just as airplanes are made from parts from 1000's of suppliers.

    What you are doing is saying that we should give no credit to Boeing because Rolls-Royce actually builds the planes' engines. Or Alcoa produced the aluminum alloy.

    Apple gets the credit because Apple designed the iPad and chose appropriate components from hundreds of suppliers. It's not at all like going to Boeing and choosing how many seats you want from the options Boeing offers. Not even close.
  • Spongebob31 - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Following that logic, fans of Samsung, LG and Foxconn love Asian companies compared to American companies.  Because of the fact that Apple is an American company which gets its cheap labour from Asia that would mean that people like you are Asian?
    Or am I being racist?  Maybe you're married to an Asian?  Or maybe you're a hick who can't afford some of the premium products which Apple charges and so look to other companies to copy its designs and sell them at a cheaper rate albeit with less quality.  Or maybe you simply hate Apple for no other reason than envy/jealousy?
    I can take this train of thought about as far as you did and be just as genuine as you.  Hahahaha
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Wait, so you are actually happy that Apple overprice their products so they can be called "premium"? Oh... fanboys. Reply
  • KoolAidMan1 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Overpriced compared to what? Alternative tablets can't compete with a $400 iPad 2, and what other company can release a mass market product with a 2048x1536 for $500? Even competing ultrabooks can't undercut a Macbook Air by very much.

    Now if you mean cheaper products using inferior components, then yes, there are absolutely other less expensive products out there. Given the fact that there isn't much of a difference when they are trying to directly compete on physical and internal specs, it is hard to call most of Apple's products overpriced.
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    We all know that Apple products in general are overpriced.

    Again with the myth that "Apple uses superior components". No, again they're just overpriced. Apple uses the exact same components as everybody else i.e. all made in China by slave labor.

    Specs wise, MBA is pretty poor compared compared to its price. You can get a laptop with same specs as MBA for $200 less.
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    'We all know that Apple products in general are overpriced.'

    This isn't a logical argument. You can't defend your unproven claim that something is overpriced by simply saying 'we all know they are overpriced'.

    Apple doesn't use the same materials or production methodology at all, that's why they lead all of the device reliability charts. They also don't even use the same components since their spec is massively, massively higher - in particular the GPU and the screen.

    As for the MBA - that is the worst example possible. You will not find a laptop with the same performance and specs, in the same physical package (size, weight, volume) with the same battery life for less. The closest (and only alternative) is the Asus UX31 which is similar in a lot of ways, including price, and doesn't come with the backlit keyboard or anywhere near the reliability history. The trackpad and screen are also vastly inferior. You have to understand that the difficulty and price you pay for devices like this is in their size. If you don't need a small, portable, light form factor, that's fine, get a cheaper laptop (you wont find any comparable performance laptop for $200 anyway, by the way), but don't ever dream that they are comparable, or just ignore the fact that the technology is crammed into such a small space, something a lot of people want.

    And besides, this isn't about laptops - even if Apple was overpriced in one area (such as Mac desktops, which is the example you should have given) - it doesn't prove that they are overpriced in all.
  • AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Apple is overpriced because their profit margin is 40%, morally wrong to me, when other vendors get by below 20%.

    They can sell tablet at such *affordable* price (compared to other competitors' offerings) is only because of economies of scale---their customer base is so vast.

    Doesn't stop the fact that it's ovepriced as defined by profit margin, roots of all evil.
  • tim851 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    If Apple cuts its profit margin and offers the MBA at 600$, what do you think would happen to the competition at that price point? All those cheap ass plastic Notebooks from manufacturers who can only dream of Apple's profit margin, but can't compete on price NOW.

    So if Apple uses it's unprecedented grip at the supply chain to totally drive out all competition - is that morally okay to you?
  • WaltFrench - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Hope you don't sully your morals by buying anything from Intel.

    Or Microsoft.

    Or Adobe.

    Well, maybe now that their products aren't selling so well, Adobe would be OK. But watch out, once they figure out some HTML5 tools, they'll be back on your no-no list. Better snag that CS while they're in this window of low-profit-margin opportunity!

    By the way, how do you tolerate being in the same room with so many people of low moral standards?
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Oh please... like the fact that Apple charges $100 per 2GB of RAM upgrade is not overpriced. Like the fact that a simple SD card reader dongle costs $30 is not overpriced. Like the fact that a simple leather cover costs $80 is not overpriced. It is so obvious that it needs to not be said any more.

    If you seriously think that there aren't any laptops that aren't as good as MBAs with the same or lower price then you need to have your fanboy blinders off. Again... $100 per extra 2GB... doesn't sound cheap at all.

    And it's also funny that ASUS, Toshiba and Sony all have lower laptop failure rates than Apple's.
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You listed a whole bunch of items which aren't an iPad, and called them overpriced.

    I've already explained to you that just because one item is overpriced, doesn't mean every item is.

    The dongle for SD cards can be bought for $5 btw.

    You're going to need to evidence your claim that Toshiba, Sony and Asus have lower laptop failure rates. All the studies I've seen put Sony way down. Any studies which talk about 'failure rates' need to be put into context too, since people with $200, $300 laptops don't generally care as much about repairing them.

    Your phrase 'there aren't any laptops AS GOOD' as MBA is subjective, and therefore not logical. As I said, you cannot get an equally specc'd machine for less, and the spec includes the components, size, weight, battery life, screen, mousepad and backlit keyboard. All you have to do to prove me wrong is provide an example of one. You still haven't.
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    That's why I said "Apple products" and not "iPads".

    Dongle can be bought for $5 - the one not made by Apple, I assume.

    Here's your evidence:

    You suck at arguing and you're grasping at straws now so I will not bother anymore. Do some research on your own, for God's sakes. Do I have to wipe your ass for you?

    Newsflash, the 2GB, 1.6Ghz dual-core CPU on the basic MBA model is really outdated by today's standards. Most have 4GB by standard and a faster CPU.
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Of course, you're going to reply with something like "But but but... Mac OS X is so heavily optimized that it doesn't NEED the extra RAM or a faster CPU!" Yawn... next. Reply
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Btw, if you don't think that paying $100 per 2GB of RAM or $200 per SSD upgrade or whatever is not overpriced and does not count, then I don't know what else to tell you. I will just call you a fanboy and move on.

    Everybody knows that you can get laptops with the same specs for lower price than MacBooks.
  • eallan - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I tried really hard to ignore your ranting, and failed.

    Your only examples are ACCESSORIES or UPGRADES.

    The macbook pro is far and away the nicest laptop I've ever seen. I use mine all the time, and it's stuffed with high quality hardware. I upgraded my own ram, and saved a bit of money.

    Stop ranting about a few accessories mattering. Don't buy them.

    The iPad is hardly overpriced even compared to other OEMs SMART PHONES.

    You can not like apple for a million reasons, I really don't care. It's just irritating reading you type some tripe like "Everyone knows apple is overpriced," and having no evidence.
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    I'm only mentioning accessories because I'm trying to make a point. It's not as if MacBooks are not overpriced, now is it? Reply
  • doobydoo - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    You said 'Apple Products' - and guess what, that includes EVERYTHING they produce, not just SOME things. iPad and Macbook Air are within that all-encompassing statement of yours.

    As I predicted, that report is based on reported failure rates. People who have budget laptops from Toshiba or Asus don't tend to be as fastidious about repairing them.

    More relevant counter proof (since the topic at hand is mobile devices):

    Regarding the Macbook Air, I run Windows on mine, and you've been asked to do something very simple. Tell us the specific make and model which is cheaper and has equivalent spec (SSD speed, size, weight, depth, volume, screen quality, touchpad quality, backlit keyboard). Once you do that (which is impossible), I'll explain to you why you're wrong. You're making vacuous claims until you actually provide an example.

    You don't need an Apple dongle for it to work, and again your ramblings about accessories are not relevant.

    The $200 upgrade cost both doubles the RAM and the FLASH (SSD equivalent) hard drive, adding an additional 64GB SSD. For the sake of argument, lets take the 13 inch MBA with 128GB SSD, and 1.7 ghz processor. Find me a cheaper equivalent. If you don't reply with one, you haven't replied.
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Do a simple Google search, sheesh. I'm not going to do it for you. Reply
  • Mystermask - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Lame answer. You loose.
    (so much for "Apple is overpriced")
  • tmuller2 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Apple charges more for RAM because it costs more to make than the generic, off-the-shelf chips used in other PCs. I didn't think there was any difference until added RAM to a Mac Pro. I tried to buy from Apple but modules were EOL since my machine was couple years old. So they directed my to a 3rd-party reseller. I was loving that seeing their prices half than Apple's. However, it wasn't long until RAM modules started shutting down from overheating. Ended up having to take one out. I was informed that Apple's RAM uses a custom design with high dollar materials, such as some type of brass for the heat sinks. Apple's RAM emits much less eternal heat than typical modules. Apple's components are highly customized relative to others, add to Apple's cost. Reply
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    "Apple charges more for RAM because it costs more to make than the generic, off-the-shelf chips"

    HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Apple fanboys really are mad, aren't they? ROFL at justifying Apple's overcharging strategy at the expense of the ignorant. Newsflash: Apple uses the same RAMs as everybody else, most likely made by Samsung or whomever is making the most amount of RAM.
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    " I was informed that Apple's RAM uses a custom design with high dollar materials, such as some type of brass for the heat sinks."

    The teardown at iFixit shows that it indeed uses regular Samsung RAMs with no special heatsinks whatsoever. Whoever told you that was just pulling your leg :).
  • robinthakur - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link

    He said Mac Pro, as in the big silver desktop model, so it is conceivably true because alot on a Mac Pro is quite custom and hence extraordinarily expensive. Learn to read, troll. The iPad3 is a bargain of epic proportions given the specs, that's why they sold 3 million over last weekend. In terms of total cost of ownership over 3 years, I don't find Apple laptops overpriced at all. The better level of support and build quality/esale value and nice design are worth paying for in my opinion. If my mates who have bought cheapo laptops are any indication, they usually stop working shockingly quickly, and the support is lousy. Who wants to deal with that? Reply
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    They are 'premium' because they have the longest battery life, highest resolution, best reliability ratings, best customer satisfaction ratings, and by far and away the fastest GPU (over 4x in some benchmarks) when compared to the very best of the rest.

    If you find a comparable tablet you can describe this one as overpriced. Oh... haters.
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You can say the same thing about anything, Transformer Prime, Galaxy Tab, whatever.

    Transformer Prime... fastest CPU, longest battery with docks, Galaxy Tab 7.7... best screen.
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You just illustrated the difference.

    Transformer Prime ..... 4x slower GPU. Not longest battery without being plugged in.

    Galaxy Tab, 'best screen' ? Please. That's not a fact at all.

    So out of the three examples you gave, for 2 tablets, 2 of them are wrong. That leaves precisely one point you were able to make about the iPad - that it doesn't have the fastest CPU. A point easily debunked by citing the fact that iOS is more heavily optimised and so you don't actually ever feel anything slower due to the CPU. Also iOS is GPU accelerated so the GPU does a lot of the work.

    Compare that weak argument to the 5 items I listed, and I could have gone on. You're fighting a losing battle if you're really trying to claim there's a better tablet out there right now.
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    4x is a stretch, it's more like 2-3x at best. And at native resolution, there's no difference between iPad 3 and iPad 2. And it has 4x the slower CPU than Tegra 3.

    Please, it has an OLED screen which means it wins by default.

    Again with the "iOS is heavily optimized, blah blah blah" myth. It just goes to show that you're yet another blind Apple fanboy.
  • doobydoo - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    iOS is heavily optimised. Even Google admits that is a large advantage iOS has over Android, which necessarily can never be as tightly coupled to the hardware. The benchmarks for example the GL fill test show over 4x faster in some cases. The iPad also has the capability to render at the lower resolution of the iPad 2 - giving it the choice of either 4x better than Android in FPS, or 4x Android in quality of that FPS. Therefore there clearly is a difference, and to say there isn't is to ignore the quality of the resolution, clearly ridiculous. Your claim that the CPU is 4x slower is simply nonsense, not evidenced by any benchmark anywhere. Just a flat out lie.

    Comments like 'OLED screen wins by default' aren't logical discussions, particularly when comparing screens with just over 25% of the resolution of the new iPad.
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Btw, the latest review on Engadget shows that Galaxy Tab 7.7 has the best battery life by far - by 12 hours :).

    I don't care what you say, it may be a preference but it is a fact that OLEDs have better response time, color reproduction rate and contrasts than LCDs. FACT.
  • doobydoo - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    The Galaxy Tab 7.7 doesn't have better battery life 'by' 12 hours, it has a 2 hour better battery life 'OF' 12 hours. It is a lower powered, lower sized tablet (7.7 inch screen vs 9.7) and therefore isn't really directly comparable to the Galaxy Tab or the iPad.

    I will concede the battery life is good though, even taking into account the fact it is a smaller, slower, lower resolution device.

    The problem with the Galaxy Tab 7.7 is mainly the fact it stutters with the software it runs.
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    4x slower CPU is an exaggeration/sarcasm, duh, just like your exaggerated claim of 4x faster GPU. Reply
  • doobydoo - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    I'm glad you admit, essentially, that your claim is wrong, and no benchmarks show the CPU being 4x faster.

    My claim, on the other hand, can be evidenced by some benchmarks:
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Ever notice how you tend to justify everything for Apple? It has a slow CPU... but it's okay, because iOS is so heavily optimized that it doesn't need a faster CPU! Yeah, right. Even if it was, it doesn't help to have a faster CPU. Reply
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I mean to say "it helps to have a faster CPU". Reply
  • tmuller2 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You notice how you tend to justify everything on hardware specs? It may have a slower CPU, yet performance and actual usage is well those devices with faster chips. If having a faster CPU is so important, then why hasn't Apple used them? That would be an easy fix right? Why would Apple want to handicap itself by using such low specs? The answer is because it doesn't need to. Clock speeds are clock speeds and the only thing that matters is the user experience. In my experience, Apple devices by far have the best experience and stability. So what ever numbers listed in tech specifications, are just that. May look great on paper. Reply
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Are you saying that for example, web sites don't load faster with a faster CPU? With a slow CPU, it's impossible for web pages to load fast no matter how good the OS is. Reply
  • Mystermask - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    "Are you saying that for example, web sites don't load faster with a faster CPU?"

    Are you saying that you can compare the user experienced speed of the devices with different OSs / apps by comparing the (paper) CPU specs?

    Sorry, how stupid is that?!

    Those tech specs / cheapest parts prices fetishists are really funny. Unable to learn from a long history of 'paper spec marketing', they think they are cleverer than the rest of the world but are in fact easier to influence than people who are able to choose by defining their needs and comparing those needs to real world experience with a set of given devices.
  • doobydoo - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Ever notice that I'm correcting you all the time, and that the corrections happen to be pro-Apple because you're ridiculous Android bias leads you to make ridiculous claims?

    Both CPU and GPU matter. Overall, taking into account both, the iPad has better performance. This is backed up by all the impartial reviews which note how smooth and fast it feels, in comparison to Android tablets. It also has by far the highest resolution and largest App store.
  • gorash - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    ICS is already smooth because it supports hardware acceleration, which Android didn't used to have. Most of the reviews are based on Honeycomb. "iOS is smooth blah blah blah" - that's just because iOS has hardware acceleration, just like WP7, which people also say that it is very smooth. Reply
  • doobydoo - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    The same ICS which the Galaxy Tab doesn't support yet? Reply
  • Mystermask - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Hm. So you need to buy several different tablets to compete with an iPad? LOL. Sounds 'overpriced' to me

    (Those points are stupid: you will always find one other product that has a better implementation of feature X (price, size, smell, you name it), while laking in other areas. But at the end, you want ONE device. So such comparisons are moot.)
  • lukarak - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Why not go deeper? Samsung also buys components from various manufacturers, and puts it together. They don't make the backlight, the frame, the glass cover. You can go so deep to end up with only mining companies on your list, because everything we use comes from the earth (be it metals, oil (for plastic), and so on). Whatever the case, samsung didn't put the product to market, Apple did. Samsung's just going to see what Apple is successful at and copy it. Just like everybody else. Reply
  • medi01 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Which of the mentioned stuff is high tech, that you can't get from other suppliers. pretty please? Are you seriously comparing screens and glass covers? Reply
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Apple gets suppliers such as Sharp, LG and Samsung to make displays to its own design and specifications, they were not created by any of those three. That is generally the case with any industry. Sharp, LG and Samsung will in turn have suppliers who manufacturer the items they need to manufacturer the screens, so technically if you're a fan of Samsung or Samsung phones you are actually a fan of their suppliers.

    The key point, however, is that it's the Apple design which allows the high resolution display to work, in a way that Samsung hasn't managed to do in a tablet yet. Without Apple, we wouldn't have a tablet with that high resolution.
  • WaltFrench - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Just in case @Graag's wit goes over your head: some of us are fans of well-made, well-supported devices that leverage and enhance our skills by providing a platform of tools. I don't care who makes the polarizing filters or the power switch or any of a thousand other parts if I'm buying a device where somebody else sweat those details for me.

    If I want something I can pretend to be the engineer for, I'll buy a Chia Pet. Much cheaper way of getting involved.
  • jecastejon - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    But no combination of components, parts or companies mentioned by yourself makes an iPad. You are just playing with worlds and concepts but frankly reality is beyond that.

    The iPad still is different from other tablets and may be good or not but "consumers" can tell and feel the difference. Apple created the iPad tablet for consumer so is pointless to argue against this, and also to point that because most mayor components are supplied by other companies Apple is not adding something else to the experience. Apple creates the soul of the iPad, and the OS, and in combination with other companies adapts, combines and fine tunes those components to achieve a specific Apple vision and direction.

    I read about technology to understand what a device can do for me, if the device is good for what I intent to do then I see the price and decide if I am still willing to pay for it. But in the process the less I need is "politics". The new iPad with the retina display is getting closer to what I expect a tablet to do for me, but as tempting as it may be, I think I am going to wait for the next version. And, that shows I don't really need a tablet.

    In a tablet, that I may use as a consumer, I don't feel dumb for using a consumer device. At the current underpowered CPU stage for tablets, I prefer the quality of the screen and the graphic power. But I am not going to produce my work on a tablet, yet.
  • Morelian - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I already know I will get a new Ipad to replace my original, like the iphones I am an every other generation purchaser. The Ipad 2 didn't have anything that tugged at my wallet, but the screen on the new Ipad is the deal. I take my Ipad to work to read emails on my lunch break, cause damned if I like reading them on the Iphone. Everything so far I've seen says the new screen enhances reading, and that is what I do on my Ipad.

    Now, if Anand would only come out with the full review so I can decide if I want the Verizon flavor or the ATT flavor.
  • dvinnen - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    You have this extremely high res screen which is great but how do webpages work?

    Take this site for example, it is designed to only be 1000px wide according to the CSS (the new 3D web page inspector in the latest FF is really cool and made finding that out easy). The tablet will have a width of ~2000 or ~1500px. So how does it display? On a PC I don't have my browser fullscreen so this isn't an issue but will obviously be one on the iPad. I guess it could have a smart zoom and zoom in and get rid of the side bars but wouldn't that screw up images? No filter will ever make artificially blowing up an image look good to me.
  • madmilk - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Mobile browsers have never respected the CSS spec in regards to pixels, because of strange screen sizes and pixel densities in comparison to a laptop or desktop. It looks like to me that the iPad, new and old, tries to render to a 1024px wide screen equivalent in both orientations. It also likely reflows some stuff that won't fit, so keep that in mind.

    Yes, it does blow up images. No, you will not notice the effects, as the characteristic blockiness and blurriness only appears if the source image resolution is too low in comparison to what your eye can perceive. Most likely, the images will still be a good deal smaller than their appearance on a laptop screen, for example, so they should still be sharp.
  • Solandri - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    That's something I haven't seen any reviews address. I assume it scales website dimensions by 2x, otherwise a 1024x768 web page would take up a quarter of the 9.7" screen real estate.

    That brings up an important point though - while web-based text will look clearer, web-based photos and icons will not. They may look smoother, but due to the scaling they will not look any sharper.
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    They're just scaled like non-native res apps are. Its displayed like it would be on the old 1024x768 display.

    I think images are downsampled to save processing time too, according to the tomshardware review.
  • zlandar - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    As some who uses pays the premium for 1900x1200 IPS panels on pc computing the new display was the clincher.

    Typing this on the new iPad and the web browsing is seamless. Viewing videos and especially pictures shows off the display.
  • Khenglish - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I hope this new ultra high pixel density screen will push manufacturers to bring higher screen resolutions to computer monitors. I do not understand why monitors have not advanced beyond my 16" CRT from 2002 that can do 2048x1536. Instead of pixel density going up, it's gone DOWN since then with the most recent high res standard 1920x1080 coming in at 23" or larger, and 2560x1600 screens are 27"+.

    I would love to see 2560x1600 come down to say 20 inches. I'd rather not have a 30" screen in my face that I have to turn my head for to look from one corner to the other.
  • dagamer34 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Operating systems and apps haven't supported high DPI displays on smaller screens. For the longest time, OS vendors believed that vector graphics were the solution, but pixel doubling is a good enough solution that it's clearly the path forward now. Reply
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Maybe battery is the issue. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I'm guessing Apple will keep moving Retina-ish displays up the line. First 3.5" displays, then 9.7", probably 11" and 13" Airs at the same time next, then the Macbook Pros. Reply
  • aranyagag - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I am a person who never even considers apple products-- I am as much of an anti apple fanboy as it is possible to be.
    Unfortunately, their products -- Display wise have EXACTLY what I want. Why the hell do the windows / android camp not GET IT. I mean Macbooks pros have had 16:10 MATT screens and now the ipad has 4:3 wide gamut(for tablets) display
  • kmmatney - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I'm just waiting for a someone to step up and make a 16:10 windows laptop. If someone wants to stand -out from the crowd, now is their chance. Reply
  • Solandri - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    Display-wise, Apple has always been at the forefront since their products have traditionally sold to graphics artists and photographers. Mac OS supported 24-bit colors back when the best Windows hardware supported 16-bit (15-bit really). Resolutions could go higher. Apps were color space-aware. Color calibration and a LUT were supported. Monitors were color-calibrated out of the factory for sRGB, so you got semi-accurate colors even if you didn't have calibration equipment. etc. Their only faux pas IMHO was switching the Macbooks to glossy TN panels. Reply
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    OLED > LCD. Galaxy Tab 7.7 has an OLED screen. Reply
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    The Galaxy Tab also has awful difficulty running the previous of version of Android, since it doesn't even have ICS yet.

    It's also more expensive than even the new iPad, in the UK.

    The Galaxy 7.7 is £429
    The new iPad starts at £399, the old one £329.

    You would have to be mental to pay more for a slower, laggy, lower resolution tablet which doesn't even have the latest operating system out.

    Btw, the screen on the new iPad is LCD, but not just LCD. It has IPS technology which addresses all of the issues of LCD, meaning that to normal users it's every bit as good.
  • ssddaydream - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You are probably correct for that for most people, IPS LCD is perfectly good.
    For me, I literally can't stand any LCD I've seen.
    The iPhone 4 screen annoys me.
    I still have a Sony Artisan CRT and I use a SAMOLED+ phone.
    I won't even bother with a tablet until there is a high-res SAMOLED+ display with Windows 8. Android would probably be acceptable, but I'd prefer Windows 8.
  • myhipsi - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    You're just a contrarian. How does the iPhone 4 screen "annoy" you? It's, by far, one of the best phone displays on the market. As for LCD monitors? A Dell u3011 absolutely smokes that Sony CRT in every area other than black level and refresh rate. Reply
  • ssddaydream - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Any LCD annoys me.
    Backlight bleed, viewing angles, color saturation being dependent on viewing angles, black level detail, the filter array's graininess, ITS SMALL, low color gamut, etc.
    Why don't you do some research and actually go look at a high-quality CRT display or compare SAMOLED+ to LCD?
  • myhipsi - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    You're comparing the characteristics of a low quality LCD to a high quality CRT:

    If you buy a high quality IPS LCD display, viewing angles are practically a non-issue (nor is color saturation). Color gamut on the Dell u3011 for example is 117% of AdobeRGB, how's that "small" or "low"? Geometry on an LCD is perfect, can't say the same for CRT. LCD also beats out CRT in sharpness. I will admit, like I did in my OP, that black levels are inherently not as good on LCDs due to the backlight.

    I'll submit that the preference for either LCD or CRT is completely subjective, so I can understand you suggesting that you PREFER a CRT over an LCD, but to say that LCD annoys you (IOW looks like crap) is a stretch.
  • medi01 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    "best" display eh? Ever compared it to Galaxy I or II with AMOLED?

    I recall iPad 2 used to have "best screen" too. And now we discover that it's 49% of adobe rgb vs 63% on Galaxy Tab.
  • doobydoo - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    I don't think anyone ever claimed the iPad 2 had the best screen.

    Screen taste is largely subjective. A lot of people can't tell the difference in actual use between the Super AMOLED and the IPS LCD in the new iPad. They can definitely tell there is an increase in resolution though.

    That being said, I think the screens on the Galaxy are good, but that's about the only thing which is good on them. They are even more expensive than the new iPad too. Insane.
  • myhipsi - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    I said, "ONE of the best", and yes, I have compared it to the Samsung Galaxy screen, it looks cheap and over saturated in comparison. Reply
  • medi01 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Oh yeah, baby. And first iPads run latest OSes soo smothly, right? :))
    A friend of mine with an iPad is very pissed off about it. After update to 5.x It crashes on him several times a day, is slow AND he cannot downgrade.

    A nice way to force your customer to buy moar from you.
  • doobydoo - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    I know loads of people with original iPads running the latest version with no issues at all.

    If you want to talk about forcing your customer to buy 'moar' from you - look no further than all the Android tablets, many of which don't even have ICS yet, which was released 5 months ago.

    At least Apple users get support for a decent period of time. If they want to roll back to the previous version of iOS, they can too, so no harm done if they don't like it.
  • medi01 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Uhm, how is 4:3 a good thing? Tried to watch videos on it? Reply
  • doobydoo - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    4:3 is better for portrait mode (which is the position used the most).

    It's worse for videos, so it's a trade off either way. Most people prefer the device to work better for more of the time so 4:3 is good for them.
  • vol7ron - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I think the iPad3 would get more hype if it supported Flash :)

    Not to beat a dead horse (again), but let's face it, the iPad technology improved, but it's more like a iPad 2.5 release, rather than a 3. It kind of seems like the iPhone 4S disappointment, which to me signifies Apple's struggle in delivering something truly remarkable and inspiring. -- if Jobs hadn't passed, this is something I was waiting on... to see how stagnant design would become.

    I don't own the iPad and it seems if I wanted one, I'd buy the iPad 2, only I still think $399 is still too much. I'd be a buyer at $299 (new or refurbished). I guess I'll wait to see the new Android offering :)
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Android gets praise for supporting flash but I never use it. At least on my single core phone (Nexus S), flash is too crappy to play anyways. Adobe themselves aren't going to support it on mobile for long, time to move on. Reply
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    "Not to beat a dead horse (again), but let's face it, the iPad technology improved, but it's more like a iPad 2.5 release, rather than a 3."

    So your complaint is that Apple (who specifically do NOT call this an iPad3) did not deliver what you consider to be an iPad3? Uhh, what?

    Your primary complaints seem to be
    (a) Apple didn't include more stuff (which would drive up the price) AND
    (b) It's too expensive.

    Right, glad that's settled.
  • andersenep - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    I still haven't figured out what all the rage is about with tablets, but I finally broke down and got one of these new iPads (32gb wifi) mostly because I'm addicted to gadgets. The screen really is stunning. It makes my 11 inch MacBook Air's display look like absolute garbage, and I now feel incredibly cramped whe I go to use my iPhone 4.

    Still, both of the MBA and iPhone are much more useful and utilitarian to me. The iPad is neat and looks pretty, but I am having a really hard time justifying the purchase...It's biggest selling point seems to be as a media consumption device, and I'm just not buying it. Video is limited by cramped storage and, at least in my case, requires transcoding from more popular formats (mkv), not to mention reliance on iTunes (I also use Air Video, but seriously....). For music, it's no better than an iPod/iPhone. It's not very good for any sort of productivity. It's ok, but not great for casual gaming. The cameras are nothing spectacular. It's ok for ebooks, but really not any better than my iPhone other than having a larger screen.

    It's basically a $600 web browser/email client with a really nice display. Sure you can use it for other thing, but it's not really good at them. Why is everyone so worked up about iPads and tablets in general? Is there some killer feature I'm missing??
  • swaggapad - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    tablets aren't for everyone!!!! For me its total media consumption, reading the newspaper or magazine on the train to work, or web/email when on a break or watching Netflix, HBO Go laying in bed or any of the various video content apps that are available. The only time I ripped movies and put on my tab was for watching on a flight for a few hours. But since having it, i have started using it at work since all of our meeting and conferencing are available apps so its goes with me to meetings for note taking as well or joining meetings remotely instead of cracking open my laptop.

    Bottom line I find ways to plug the tab into my lifestyle and subsequently its like my American Express, I dont leave home without
  • serkol - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    You don't have kids, or a wife :-) Reply
  • swaggapad - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    lol---they got tabs there Reply
  • Bragabondio - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    >>Why is everyone so worked up about iPads and tablets in general? Is there some killer feature I'm missing??

    No :) It is a luxury item that many people who use computers casually like. It is purposefully build like an appliance so Apple can sale you music, apps and TV shows. If you want to do more with a very portable device buy an android (currently very happy with Galaxy note)
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    IMO the Note is ridiculously oversized for a phone (people making calls on it look ridiculous) and way too small for a tablet. Tries to be a jack of all trades but ends up being a master of none.

    If you don't see the benefit of tablets, just don't get one. Switching to Android wont offer you anything new.
  • Subzero0000 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I think that you will find it a lot more useful if you buy 3G/4G version instead of WIFI only.
    It's better without the dependency on WIFI access point (even if shared from your phone). Really, it makes a lot of difference.

    It IS a media consumption device, but really depends on what you tend to consume.
    If you usually read a lot of articles, watch videos online, some light gaming, then it works.
    But if you prefer ripped full-length movie, then you have to deal with iTunes.

    It's definitely not for productivity, do that on your PC/Laptop.
    It's for casual usage when you lying on a bed, sitting in toilet, or standing in a bus.

    So yes, there is nothing to work up about.
    I still keep my iPad 2. For a media consumption device, it's good enough. No reason to upgrade yet.
  • uhuznaa - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Do you have any other interests than computers? Music, photography, reading, astronomy, science? There's an awful lot of things software can offer great tools for while computers are just too cumbersome to bother with at the same time. A tablet with the right apps can be a real revelation here.

    Tablets are just great for everything where you want to use software and a net connection without having to bother with an outright computer. Just because there are some people who can't have enough "real" computers around them all day long or who don't have any other interests than computers does not mean that tablets are useless for everyone.

    (And mind you, I don't have an iPad -- the gap between my computers and my smartphone is just too small to waste another gadget on it. But I can fully understand when this is different for others. I think the iPad is a great device. If I had a different kind of job I would throw my computers out, get an iPad and would be happy. And there are days I dream of doing exactly this, really.)
  • andersenep - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Thanks for all the replies :-)

    As for music, photography, reading, science. Yes to all of those. I absolutely love having Photo Stream with iCloud. Awesome. And again, this display is really amazing in a consumer device, so it's a real pleasure looking at my photos on it.

    I'll have to do some more hunting around the app store, but 99% of the apps I can put on my phone, and a lot of them have OS X versions as well.

    I think I just fall is the same category as you, where the gap is too small (especially with my MBA which is very close to as portable as the iPad)

    I really want to love it, but for me it's just not filling any particular niche. I don't consider myself a fanboi at all, but when I got my iPhone 3G and later my 11 inch Air, it was instant love. All I can personally say for the iPad is that it's pretty. I'm hoping it grows on me.

    As for the cellular stuff mentioned above, I simply don't want to pay AT&T any more money for a data connection. Especially when I'm restricted to a 4GB data cap and already paying twice for the same data (tethering).
  • strangevil - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I also fall in the same category. I have an iPhone 4S and a 13" MBA (older generation), however, I find the iPad pretty nifty. I LOVE reading books and browsing the web on it. I generally am a heavy reader on the net and having a screen which gives me magazine like quality is really awesome.

    If you watch videos, I'd recommend you download AVplayer from the Appstore. It plays 720P .mkv's without any problem on the iPad and also supports wifi transfer. So no need of transcoding or encoding in diff format. Also, it supports variety of Aspect ratio and changes it according to your liking taking advantage of the weird iPad resolution (also supports 4:3).

    Also, Flipboard is pretty neat and doubles as a RSS reader.... Good reader is another great app for pdf and other format reading.

    For me it's mainly a media consumption device and I love it for what it provides. I also like playing games on it. Reading is where iPad is killer. If you love reading books, next after Kindle, iPad should be your choice of tablet.
  • andersenep - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Thanks for the tip on AVplayer. I'm still tinkering with it. I store everything on a Solaris box (ZFS...yum), and so far I'm not having a lot of luck with the built in FTP client, but I'll keep working it. If it'll just save me the hassle of having to transcode videos to store/play them on the device, it's worth the $3.

    Air Video works fairly well, the downside to it is that I end up having to run the server side of it on a Win7 box that transcodes everything on the fly. It's got the nuts to chow thru HD content, but it's a bit of a hack really. A native CIFS or NFS client on iOS and/or support for at least AVI/MKV would be a godsend, but I know better than to think that'll ever happen.

    I used to love stanza for ebooks, but now that Amazon seems to have halted any future development, it's a bit of a dead end. iBooks is ok and I used it, but I really miss stanza. Either way, I really actually prefer my iphone for reading ebooks, as opposed to the iPad. It's easier for me to hold comfortably, and it's perfectly readable.

    My wife has a Kindle (the one with a keyboard, not the Fire), and it's great until you turn the lights out. I like my iPhone (or iPad) because I don't need a light, and it's not bright enough to keep her awake if I want to read all night in bed.

    Again, like I stated in my original post, it's great for web browsing/email (and I'll even throw in ebook reading), but at a $500 entry point......I guess I just wish it was a bit better at something else....anything....
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    How much reading do you do?
    iPad makes the best reader for PDFs bar none. Use a proper PDF reader like GoodReader, not iBooks, which is crap for PDFs.

    If you read a lot, it is worth it just to have an experience that is so much better than reading on a laptop.
  • andersenep - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Well, I don't read PDFs at all. My format of choice is ePub, since I already have a fairly substantial library in that format.

    I also don't read on my laptop. I am very happy reading on my phone. The iPad doesn't raise the bar for me on user experience over the phone.

    How much I read varies quite a bit. I re-read a lot of the same books, as I'm very picky.
  • kriskl - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link


    hi, not directly a dig at you, but I registered just now, as I am getting so annoyed at people who says iPad is only consumption device..

    the are so many apps for iPad which are for productivity and creativity..

    if you are into music, like you say, get garageband for a start (there are so many other music creation apps for iPad) but garageband is the easiest to use,

    i never thought i could create music,. now I can, maybe not the greatest hits.. haha, but for someone who does not play any instrument.. I think you will be astonished what can be done on iPad.. check this out:
  • andersenep - Friday, March 23, 2012 - link

    Well, I do play an instrument, the banjo, and GarageBand is neat, but I can do a lot more with Band in a Box. I can also use GarageBand on my MacBook air if I wanted too, it did come with iLife.

    GarageBand is a cool and slick program. Doesn't cut it for us bluegrass fans :-)
  • medi01 - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    You're missing Android OS with MKV (and what not) support and wide screen.
    But yeah, rather limited functionality, price is hardly justified. (why did you pay 100$ per 8Gb of memory by the way?)

    Still quite handy if you're traveling.
  • andersenep - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Like I said, I am a gadget addict. It's more healthy and less addictive than cocaine (but not by much).

    Maybe I'll try to trade it for or sell it and get an android device of some sort. I'm not at all impressed with any of my friends android phones, but maybe it'll grow on me.

    I just am not impressed with tablets in general. Not a big deal. I was just honestly curious if I was missing something given the popularity of these devices.
  • Mystermask - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Just because YOU don't know what to do with it does not mean other have the same problem. E. g. it can be very good for productivity apps that are written with a tablet in mind (some cool sound apps come to my mind). Reply
  • andersenep - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Would you care to name a few of those apps?

    I'm not hating, I just honestly wonder what I am missing.
  • andersenep - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    So I just discovered Air Display. Second display for my MBA is pretty killer. Reply
  • SonicIce - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    lol maco lens. 2nd paragraph. =) Reply
  • JSt0rm01 - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    they really pwn in pixel density eh? :) Reply
  • mland550 - Monday, March 19, 2012 - link

    There's a 40-or-so-page article on the macrumors forum comparing color temps between the new iPad and its predecessors/competitors. Many have commented on an off-white, yellowish screen at all brightness levels when displaying an all-white screen. Others still see a pinkish-toned screen. I am in that camp - When my iPad's screen displays white, it's not how I perceive the actual color - it's warmer and more pink.

    You mention in your post that the white balance of 6700 is the same as the iPad2's. Does this mean an all-white screen should appear the same on both panels? I admit the clarity of the display is amazing - but the color temperature, for me, is not. Moving from my desktop to my phone has never been as visually jarring as it is with the iPad - at first I thought it was the pixel density, but all my photos look exceptionally warm on the iPad. I would love to get your thoughts on what's happening here.
  • gorash - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I'd say, it still sucks. Bring on the OLED. Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I think OLEDS are still inferior in sunlight, but I haven't looked into it recently, did that change somehow? And while the black levels are great and the colours really pop out at you, some people find them too saturated and add artificial saturation where they shouldn't be. Personally I like them, but its not cut and dry that OLED is better. And its also interesting that Apple still leads in battery life despite using supposedly inferior LCds. Reply
  • Stas - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    so Prime still has better screen? cool. Reply
  • TEAMSWITCHER - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Did you mouse over the captions beneath the TEXT sample bitmap at the bottom of the first page? You can see very clearly that the ASUS Transformer Prime has an inferior display. It's not even close! Reply
  • Stas - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Yes, I did, even though it wasn't working correctly. Obviously, there is more to the screen than resolution. And when resolution is high enough for me to not see the pixels (Prime) then I will take contrast and brightness over more pixels that I won't see anyway. Reply
  • AnnihilatorX - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    While the iPad 2 and TF Prime both were able to represent ~40% of the Adobe RGB color gamut, the new iPad jumps by nearly 50% to representing 65% of the Adobe RGB gamut.

    You shouldn't really say that. The jump from 40% to 65% is 20%, not 50%
    Don't mix percentile with relative ratios.
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    When you start out at 40%, of anything, if you see a 20% improvement compared to that 40% starting point, you end up at 48%.

    Using percentages is correct, you just have to know what is a percentage of what, which admittedly should have been made clearer.

    It would have been more incorrect to say the iPad had improved by 20% when that would imply it hasn't made as much of an improvement as it has.
  • doobydoo - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    (To be clear, a percentage is a relative ratio. % = / 100 ) Reply
  • Origin32 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I hate it when people don't distinguish between percents and percent points. /petpeeve
    3rd alinea 3rd page I'm glad you asked
  • guidryp - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    "While it's still no where near the quality of high-end PC displays"

    In what way? I have an NEC 2490 high end PC display (> $1000).

    In most ways the new ipad display equals or betters it.

    I hope Anand hasn't fallen into the trap thinking that Wider gamut = better.

    There really is only one gamut standard in wide use and that is sRGB. Any deviation falling short(as old iPad did), or going beyond sRGB will produce less accurate color in most situations.

    This display is as close to sRGB as I have seen in any monitor. Since that is actually the proper target to aim for (not simply wider = better), they have done an exemplary job.
  • medi01 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    On other tablets, Samsung's Galaxy in particular? (only 3 were shown in chart) Reply
  • medi01 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I guess I know why it isn't shown:

    Gamut of Adobe RGB 1998
    iPad 2 - 49.9%
    iPad 3 - 66%
    Galaxy Tab 10.1 - 62.8%
    Transformer Prime (SuperIPS Off) - 40.2%

    So older Galaxy Tab has much better color gamut than iPad2 and is very close to iPad3.
  • midori - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I think we all saw enough of photos from microscopes and magnifying glass.
    I don't really see a reason in posting comparison photos that are so "close" and zoomed in.
    That just isn't real world scenario. We all get get that the screen has 4X pixel count but post comparison photos from normal usage distance. That way I can really see if I can benefit from all those extra pixels or not.
  • Graag - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    The problem with normal size comparison photos is that they will generally be viewed on monitors with less than the iPad's resolution. Making it difficult to really tell the difference. Sort of how it would be hard to evaluate color TVs by looking at them on a B&W TV. Reply
  • uhuznaa - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    One thing that would be really useful would be full-size screenshots of an iPad 2 and an iPad 3 displaying the same book-sized PDF.

    Especially PDFs are terrible on the older iPad. I mean, there're lots of really good apps for working with them, but the need to constantly zoom around is just maddening. The new display should really help here a lot.
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I hate to have to point out the obvious but you've said something REALLY stupid here.
    PDFs are not "terrible" on iPads. It's just that iBooks is a crappy PDF reader.

    Go to the App Store. Type in PDF Reader. You will see a hundred different possibilities, pretty much all of which allow you to crop PDFs. Personally I think GoodReader is the best because of its various synchronization abilities and its hierarchical filing system, but there are plenty of alternatives and even the free options are not too bad.
  • svojoe - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    I'm really happy to see pixel densities increasing. But really this is not revolutionary... my 4 year old HTC FUZE smart phone had a 2.8" screen, and a 640x480 resolution. I think that is 288PPI.

    Which would mean, its pixel density is 'higher' than the IP3. Its not as if this is 'amazing' innovation to me. However its nice because I've been thoroughly saddened by pixel counts dropping for the last 6 years.
  • name99 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    (a) No-one is calling it revolutionary. They are calling it a really nice screen for a tablet.

    (b) It's a TABLET-SIZED screen, not a 2.8" screen. The fact that people could make SMALLER high-res screens years ago is not a secret.

    You're acting like someone who sees that you can now buy a thin LCD 46" TV for $500 and says "So what, we had color TVs thirty years. Admittedly they cost a fortune, and had a smaller screen, and weighed a ton, and were three feet deep, but they displayed TV and that's all that really matters".
  • svojoe - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Maybe you have not caught some of the hype over the ip3. I've heard people call the new screen "a huge leap forward", "magical clarity", etc etc. Maybe I am a bit put off by all this hoop-la. I haven't even seen one yet, but I'm sure its really amazing levels of detail. And that is good. In this instance I want to applaud apple for raising the bar. Because it has falling oh, so low the last several years when it comes to resolution and PPI. Reply
  • Taurus229 - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    Brightness is OK, pixel count makes it shine !!!!!!! Goodbye Metro and Windows 8 !!!!!!!! Maybe now, Microsoft won't put all their eggs in one basket, and ignore corporate and desktop users. Reply
  • ffletchs - Tuesday, March 20, 2012 - link

    you left out the best tablet display yet, Samsung Galaxy Tab 7.7, the only tablet with Super AMOLED+ display Reply
  • trane - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    In my opinion, the pixels per inch doesn't count for anything until you account for viewing distance.

    Consider iPhone and iPad, they call it a Retina display despite a lower PPI versus iPhone simply because people are looking at their tablets from further away than their phones.

    The iPad may have a 2.5x higher PPI than the 30 inch display, but you are looking at your iPad from 12-18 inches away, while a 30 inch display will need a 4-5 feet viewing distance. The iPad will certainly be 2.5x sharper than the 30 inch Cinema Display at the same viewing distance, but who looks at a 30 inch display from 1 feet out?! In fact, most people watch 32 inch HDTVs from as far as 10 feet away. So viewing distance must be accounted for.
  • rakez - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    sorry i still prefer widescreen. yes, even for my tablets. Reply
  • Lucian Armasu - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    It seems the new Galaxy Tab 7.7 with a 5,100 kills the new iPad in battery efficiency, even though it has a more than twice as big battery at ~12,000 mAh. And it still manages to get around 200 PPI but on a Super AMOLED Plus display, which is preferable to any IPS display in my opinion. Reply
  • doobydoo - Thursday, March 22, 2012 - link

    It has a far smaller screen, much lower resolution, massively inferior GPU. It's no surprise that it can last longer. The 200 PPI is less useful given that typical users will hold it closer than the larger ~10 inch tablets.

    It's also more expensive than the new iPad in the UK.
  • Original Idea - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Can you share the formula used to calculate the PPI used in your graph. It seems that while the raw PPI is off by ~25% if using H*W/Size.

    Thanks for sharing.
  • valnar - Wednesday, March 21, 2012 - link

    Thank you Apple for keeping the aspect ratio at 4:3. It makes it usable in both directions. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now