Apple iPad 2 Preview
by Anand Lal Shimpi, Brian Klug & Vivek Gowri on March 12, 2011 6:01 AM ESTWiFi + AT&T 3G
The iPad 2 uses what boils down to same exact same 802.11a/b/g/n WiFi + Bluetooth 2.1 EDR solution as its predecessor, the BCM4329. The iPad 2 maintains full 5 GHz (802.11a/n) support, just like the previous iPad, and also negotiates a transmit rate of 65 megabits/s just like nearly all single stream 802.11n mobile devices we've seen thus far. Close to the AP and within good coverage radius, the experience is exactly the same as its predecessor. Best case throughput is virtually identical between the two generations.
The black plastic strip at the top still is an RF window for cellular connectivity. The strip is black even if your iPad is white, which is a bit puzzling.
That said, thus far we've noticed that wireless range on the iPad 2 is measurably less than the iPad 1. It's not a terribly huge difference, but definitely noticeable as you drop one or two bars of WiFi signal strength. Throughput goes way down compared to the previous generation. We're still testing everything, but it's just not quite as good. No doubt the iPad 2 has a completely different RF design than the original iPad which accounts for this difference.
Left: iPad 1 across the street, Right: iPad 2 same location
We've got both an AT&T, Verizon, and WiFi model between the three of us (Anand, Vivek, and myself) and will do the usual due diligence testing cellular connectivity.
Following the rather controversial and inexplicable crippling of HSUPA on the Motorola Atrix and Inspire 4G, the first thing I did with the iPad 2 is run a speedtest. HSUPA is definitely enabled on this device and working just fine. Throughput is where it should be in the best and worst signal cases so far, topping out at around 6 Mbps down, 1.5 Mbps up at my house within line of sight to an AT&T Node B. Apparently AT&T is inexplicably only concerned with Android devices crippling the network with upstream traffic.
AT&T iPad 2 Cellular Data Throughput
Anand did some initial testing on the Verizon iPad 2 and averaged 1.54 Mbps down, 0.72 Mbps up in testing with good signal strength, which seems about average. Max speeds we've seen on Verizon so far are 1.64 Mbps down and 0.82 Mbps up.
| iPad 2 - Network Support | |||||
| Verizon Version - CDMA2000-1xEV-DO | 800 / 1900 MHz | ||||
| AT&T Version - Quad-Band UMTS + HSDPA/HSUPA | 850 / 900 / 1900 / 2100 MHz | ||||
| AT&T Version - Quad-Band GSM/EDGE | 850 / 900 / 1800 / 1900 MHz | ||||
| Baseband Hardware | Unknown - Possibly MDM6x00 | ||||
Nobody has disassembled an iPad 2 with 3G connectivity from either Verizon or AT&T, but it seems likely that the two would both leverage a Qualcomm MDM6x00 baseband (where x is 6 for CDMA2000/EV-DO + UMTS/GSM support, 2 for only UMTS/GSM) considering its use in the Verizon iPhone 4.
MicroSIM peeking out of the side on the AT&T version. Also yes, it does come with a SIM ejector tool.
Interestingly enough the AT&T model with FCC ID BCG1396 has UMTS/HSDPA/HSUPA support for quad-band UMTS and GSM. The Verizon FCC ID BCG1397 has reports for just cellular and PCS - 850 and 1900 again but CDMA nomenclature.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
82 Comments
View All Comments
Griswold - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKPL9CnQVG8&fea...There are reports of light bleeding through the edges of the ipad2. See video above.
Would be cool if you look into this and get to the bottom of it. I dont want to buy one if its a serial flaw.
sean.crees - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
I really don't understand the complaints with the camera's. You're never going to get "good" quality photo's from a form factor that flat. Physics just doesn't allow for it with current technology. If your getting a tablet for the camera then your an idiot.It's obvious the only reason the cameras exist at all is for facetime, which they seem perfectly fitted to work with. If you want to take pictures, then buy a DSLR.
Griswold - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
Thats nonsense. The iphone4 (and many other smartphones) prove that its possible to produce good quality pictures. Good is not professional level, mind you.However, even if the pictures the iphone4 shoots are not "good" by your standards, there is no reason to sell junk cameras like this in the ipod touch and ipad2 only to come back later this year / next year with a new model that "magically" is capable of doing much better - there is not the slightest doubt it will pan out this way.
They do this on purpose. Thats the beef people have with it.
But yea, I would never use my ipad to take pictures, I use my iphone for it, or my dedicated camera if I have it on me. But Facetime with something better than VGA or a backside shooter with more than a one megapixels isnt too much to ask... again, the issue here is not primarily the lense (though, that will suck too).
solipsism - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
The iPhone 4 dimensions are thicker than the iPad 2 and the display on the iPhone 4 are fused in a way that make it thinner. That isn’t to say there is not enough height in the iPad 2 where the cameras are located, but your assumption, in and of itself, is flawed as you did not consider that actual internal room in your presumption.Death666Angel - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
Okay, so because Apple decided to make the iPad2 so thin they couldn't even put a halfway decent camera into it, we shouldn't complain? This is exactly why I personally do not want an Apple product (although the iPhone4 does have a great display I miss that on some android phones):with Apple, function follows form, they decided to make the iPad2 thinner (was there a call from the Apple community that the iPad is too thick?), but in return they couldn't (if what you say is true) fit a decent camera into the thing. And the (potential) customer is supposed to shut up about that and not complain.
ltcommanderdata - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
The complaint was that the original iPad wasn't comfortable to hold for longer periods of time. Making it thinner, lighter, and curvier was a move to address this.Quoting Anand:
"The iPad 2 is slightly lighter but easier to hold than the previous generation. Laying in bed and reading is probably where the difference becomes most apparent. The gentle curvature running around the edge makes the in-hand feel surprisingly different, as does the considerably thinner profile. I'm actually shocked at how dramatic the difference is."
Yes apparently a compromise had to be made. No doubt Apple actually considers that they optimized on the side of function. ie. the thinner iPad 2 actually functions as an ebook reader now that it's comfortable to hold. Given the typical use case for the iPad will be holding and reading something rather than taking high-quality still pictures, this is probably the best choice for the majority of users.
Juzcallmeneo - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
Retina is nice..better than an old LCD. Nothing close to as beautiful as Samsung's Super AMOLED (Plus).I see many people trying to make excuses for the cheap plastic Apple tries to call a camera..but there is no real excuse except that it's just another part of their money making strategies. I know that these devices will never come close to my 7D, but it could at least be slightly better than almost worthless. IMO with cameras this cheap they might as well have not put any on.
I feel that if Nokia can have at least a decent quality camera in a phone several months ago then it should be easy to replicate. (Nokia N8)
The thinness is definitely better for holding, it just scares me how flimsy it might be.
Seurahepo - Sunday, March 13, 2011 - link
> Nothing close to as beautiful as Samsung's Super AMOLED (Plus)I'm a bit puzzled. The Samsung phones I have seen have mostly been disappointing when it comes to the screen quality. The image is fuzzy and it seems almost like there is a template in between the screen and the glass, generating a strange patterns. I assume this to be because of the pentile layout, but I cannot be sure.
Maybe the effect goes away with higher PPI, but currently I can just say that PPI of a traditional RGB layout is not directly comparable to PPI of a Pentile RG BG, which Samsung seems to be using.
> if Nokia can have at least a decent quality camera in a phone several months ago then it should be easy to replicate. (Nokia N8)
Nokia N8 does have a decent camera. The thickness of the camera module of N8 is about double of iPad 2. In optics thickness really matters.
So yeah, it would be easy to replicate by doubling the thickness of the iPad 2 at least where the camera module is. But I fail to see the reasoning. Does iPad 2 really need that to be a good product?
The raison d'être of N8 is to be a phone with real pocket camera like quality, that is not what iPad2 is about, far from it. Therefore it would be quite foolish to try to optimize the camera.
I agree the cameras could be better, but the fantasy about N8 (or even iPhone 4) quality camera for the iPad 2 is a bit crazy.
NCM - Monday, March 14, 2011 - link
Death666Angel (!) writes:"Okay, so because Apple decided to make the iPad2 so thin they couldn't even put a halfway decent camera into it, we shouldn't complain? This is exactly why I personally do not want an Apple product..."
Surely even a moment's reflection would make obvious that a 10" class tablet is wildly unsuited by its form factor for anything but desperation photography. The iPad 2's camera is there for FaceTime video, with still photography enabled only because they can.
Contrast this with the iPhone 4, which is very usable for photography has a surprisingly capable camera.
rish95 - Saturday, March 12, 2011 - link
Well on paper the dual core SGX543MP2 graphics processor is about twice as fast as the Tegra 2's GeForce ULV. I'd like to see how that plays out in real life. I'm worried that iOS's 60 FPS cap may skew the results of some less intensive tests.And since the iPad's screen res is lower than the Xoom, you can expect an even bigger margin.