Apple's iPad - The AnandTech Review
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug & Vivek Gowri on April 7, 2010 9:39 PM EST- Posted in
- Smartphones
- Mac
- Apple
- iPad
- Mobile
Video Playback: Almost Perfect
The iPad supports hardware acceleration and playback of up to 720p H.264 Main Profile (L3.1) video content with AAC audio. It's pretty much guaranteed that you'll have to transcode anything you have to an iPad friendly format. With a fast enough desktop, this isn't an issue. Expect to dedicate anywhere from half an hour to a few hours to do it right on a fast machine depending on core and thread counts. While I never understood the appeal of watching movies on an iPhone, with the iPad I want all of my video content on there. The screen is big enough and looks great. Not to mention that battery life is way better than anything you'd get out of a netbook or notebook.
The problem is that the iPad's video playback support isn't universal. You do have to take that extra transcode step, which means you can't just copy your videos from your desktop or file server. This is one area where the incoming wave of Tegra 2 tablets and Microsoft Slate computers will undoubtedly hold an advantage. It's also an area that Apple will never improve in thanks to its close relationship to content providers.
Transcoding isn't the only way to get content onto the iPad. Websites or apps that use HTML5 video are also well supported. The ABC Player app is the perfect example of what could be done with the iPad. You have a standalone app that streams all of the shows you want to watch. There are obvious drawbacks (e.g. Limited episode selection) but the experience is great.
Castle via the ABC Player app
If you ever find yourself watching more TV on your desktop or laptop, then you'll love the iPad's potential here. I'm not a fan of selling things on the promise of a better future (e.g. PhysX), so keep in mind that today you can't do things like watch Hulu on the iPad. The only type of streaming video support is HTML5, not Flash. While a Hulu app is apparently in the works, it's not there now.
Will the iPad change the way you watch TV and movies today? No. Could it? Sure, but so could a TV that made me pancakes. Neither is ready yet or guaranteed.
A Giant iPod
There are very few things Apple makes that can't be used as an iPod, and they are mostly cables. The iPad has a great looking version of the iPod app from the iPhone. The larger interface actually works well if you've got a lot of music and cover art.
Playing music works as expected with some updated widgets on the interface (e.g. Volume control). It's a clean UI which is really a running theme on the iPad.
You can create genius playlists if you're horribly indecisive about music like me. The iPod app will look at your music and generate its own playlist based on as little as selecting one song you like. It's like a Pandora of your own music.
There's a headphone jack up top (but no Apple supplied ear buds) or you can rely on the iPad's two internal speakers. They don't sound terrible given their size, just don't go in with high expectations. They are enough for listening to music you work or surf.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
108 Comments
View All Comments
solipsism - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
I also thought the Moorestown recommendation was odd, especially when the next page was about the phenomenal battery life. If he made a more detailed case for it perhaps he'd have a point, but the simple "because it's faster" stance is lacking.Anand Lal Shimpi - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
Initial power specs for Moorestown appear to be fairly competitive with ARM based SoCs. Remember this is Moorestown, and not Pineview. The two chips are very different.Realistically I don't think it would be Moorestown, but the 32nm follow-on starts to make a lot of sense.
Take care,
Anand
metafor - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
Just curious, what are the initial power numbers for Moorestown anyway? Keep in mind that with the change in bus architecture and the use of LP DRAM, performance will be significantly slower in some cases than current netbooks. Also, would it really compare to an A9-class SoC?IntelUser2000 - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
I have a feeling Apple didn't go Moorestown for two primary reasons.1) Timeframe
2) Cost
Moorestown should be announced shortly, but the devices based on it won't be available until Q3 of this year. That's 6+ months from when the iPad is going to release. And although Intel might achieve both better performance and comparable power usage, but the sacrifice there will be higher cost. Fully integrated SoC like the A4 costs significantly less.
Performance should be quite good. There's a 600MHz version for smartphones that can use Burst Mode to 1.2GHz, and a MID oriented version that probably clocks at 1.3GHz base and does 1.9GHz burst. It's supposed to feature "Bus Turbo" as well.
If they also do a full integrated memory controller unlike Pineview we have a good chance it'll be clock per clock faster than Netbook Atoms. Earlier on Intel claimed "30%" boost over previous platform but clock speeds weren't mentioned.
metafor - Friday, April 9, 2010 - link
Moorestown will be a fully interated SoC. It'll have LP DDR1 and LP DDR2 memory controllers as well as a GPU, the Atom CPU and various peripheral connectivity. It's comparable to the A4 in terms of features although I really would not write it off as "comparable" in terms of power until some data is published.ekul - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
I'd agree the successor to moorestown is more promising. Are there even any shipping products based on moorestown yet? I don't think apple is going to take a gamble on an untested platform.I'm genuinely looking forward to seeing performance numbers for cortex a9, especially since there will be real dual core mobile variants, not just hyperthreading. A technique like what MS is planning for IE9, rendering a website on one core and compiling javascript on another, would help bridge the perormance gap along with the higher clocks.
michal1980 - Wednesday, April 7, 2010 - link
really this is easier then a laptop/notebook?A notebook by its vary nature I can rest on my lap or a table and adjust its screen. To watch a movie I dont have to hold the thing up.
To type, I dont have to bend to werid angles to hold the device up, etc etc.
IMHO, it seems like alot of the experance is attributed to the newness of the device vs its actual usage. I'm wonder how this newness will wear.
manicfreak - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
Can't you do all of those aforementioned things on an ipod touch/iphone? There are already home automation apps for the iphone right now.What can the iPad do that the iphone/ipod touch can't? Beside having a bigger screen and longer battery life?
And for such a big device, the performance should be closer to an atom instead of a snapdragon.
If something doesn't fit in my pocket, then I would rather bring a light-weight CULV laptop with me... with touchscreen if one wishes (i.e. Acer Timeline 1820T) or a hybrid notebook-tablet (Lenovo IdeaPad U1).
jasperjones - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
"there are some things the iPad does much better than anything you might own today. Web browsing, photo viewing, reading email, any passive usage scenarios where you're primarily clicking on things and getting feedback, the iPad excels at."What exactly makes it better at those tasks? It's not that I disagree but, in my opinion, you didn't drive this point home. I don't understand why you think it's better. And yes, I read the whole article.
solipsism - Thursday, April 8, 2010 - link
I don't think anything anyone can write can convince you. Many aspects just feel more natural to use. That isn't to say it's perfect everywhere but I think that as a casual mobile consumption device it's much better than a notebook, and much better than a netbook.