The Apple iPad 2 Review
by Brian Klug, Anand Lal Shimpi & Vivek Gowri on March 19, 2011 8:01 PM ESTFaceTime
by Vivek Gowri
After the iPhone 4 debuted FaceTime last year, Apple has started making every new device FaceTime capable. The iPod touch, MacBook Air and Pro, and now the iPad all can make use of FaceTime to video call other Apple devices.
Apple went with a somewhat disappointing VGA resolution front facing camera on the iPad 2, so video quality isn't great, but overall FaceTime works as advertised. The app itself is pretty similar to the iPhone/iPod touch application, with just three buttons at the bottom while the call is running - mute mic, end call, and switch cameras, in addition to the small window displaying your video stream.
The cool thing though, is that the window with your video around the screen is magnetized to the four corners, and you can flick it across the screen to any of the other three corners. I was FaceTiming with Anand and basically just playing air hockey with a picture of myself without anyone the wiser. It's a neat little detail, one of those UI flairs that makes you appreciate the attention to detail Apple has for its operating systems.
As with the iPhone and iPod touch, FaceTime requires roughly 300 Kbps total bandwidth - 150 Kbps upstream and downstream. Me and Brian both have connections with 3-5 Mbps upstream, in contrast to Anand's 500 Kbps upstream speeds, and the connection between me and Brian was significantly better than between Anand and I, providing a higher quality and less choppy video call.
It worked about as expected, though we did once manage to crash the app when switching between front and rear cameras during a video call. The biggest issue I had with it is that while video quality from the front facing camera, while acceptable on the 3.5" iPhone and iPod touch screens, looks rather poor when scaled up to a 9.7" display. But that's an issue with the actual camera hardware - the FaceTime app itself does the job about as well as one could expect.
How does FaceTime on the iPad 2 compare to Google Video Chat on the Xoom? The experience is pretty similar. Since both tablets rely mostly on the front facing camera for video chat, image quailty is similar. The big advantage the Xoom holds is you can also receive text during your chat if one of the parties is using Gtalk on a Mac/PC.
Photo Booth
by Vivek Gowri
Photo Booth started out as a small application in OS X used to take photos and videos, with a number of after effects and filters that can be applied to customize an image. I basically never ended up using it, even when I was at an easily impressed age, but I know a lot of people who thought it was pretty cool.
Apple has created a version of Photo Booth for the iPad 2, and like the desktop app, it's mostly a gimmick. The really cool part about Photo Booth is that when you first open the app, you're greeted by 9 separate live video streams with the different filters applied to each one. The center video stream is just the normal video feed, then thermal imaging, mirror, x-ray, light tunnel, stretch, twirl, squeeze, and kaleidoscope as the available effects.
Having all 9 video streams displaying at once is a nice way for Apple to showcase the computing power that the A5 has, but also a slick app that Apple can use to show off the possibilities of the iPad form factor. It's not the most useful app in the world, unless you're 13 years old and think that distorted images are cool.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
189 Comments
View All Comments
TareX - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Irrelevant, but is Anandtech gonna do an Atrix review?name99 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
"The Digital AV adapter is a bit clunky and I believe the future of this is clearly in some form of wireless transmission, but for now it plugs directly into the dock connector. "You mean the wireless transmission that ALREADY EXISTS called AirPlay?
Apple HAVE a solution to your hatred of wires. You seem to be upset that they don't have a solution that somehow magically transports video from iPad to your (HDMI and nothing else) TV using some non-existent wireless standard that isn't actually built into your TV.
It's fine to be frustrated at some of the idiocies in tech, but it's truly silly to complain about this one. Apple provides this cable for one, and only one, group of users --- people who actually NEED that physical wire.
BlendMe - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
AirPlay doesn't mirror tha iPads screen, it only allows you to stream content. For now. And for AirPlay you need an Apple TV or another AirPlay enabled device. The HDMI adapter allows you to hook it up to almost any recent TV, monitor or beamer.ananduser - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
In fact there is a standard already built in in most modern(emphasis on modern) TVs. It is called DLNA. Unfortunately Apple decided that coercing you into using their ecosystem ONLY is the way to go. Personally I find Apple's modus operandi of not giving 2 sh*ts about other 3rd party solutions one of the "idiocies in tech" as you well put it.Regardless, the iPad2(or 1) is a cool gadget(emphasis on gadget) nonetheless. Combined with leading parental controls as:no flash(as a porn enabler), no porn(appstore policy), no bloody/gory games(appstore policy) and a damn spartan simple and fast GUI makes it a great basic computing device for the naive crowd(parents, grandparents etc.). IMO it really shines for children as their 1st computing platform.
That it is also a frequent choice for the tech literate few, good on them... it still is best suited, IMO, for those of the above.
name99 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Can both of you not read?I was referring to, as I quoted, "The Digital AV adapter is a bit clunky and I believe the future of this is clearly in some form of wireless transmission, but for now it plugs directly into the dock connector. "
How do either of your comments have any relevance to that?
If you want Wifi, you need something that accepts a Wifi signal. Your TV doesn't have Wifi built in, so, yeah, you need some other box.
And DLNA? Really? You want to go there? Go explore the DLNA web pages (http://www.dlna.org/products is a good start) and tell me this pile of turds is EVER going to be relevant to the real world. For god's sake, man, get in touch with the real world. Compare that web page and everything it implies about compatibility nightmares and technobabble with the Apple TV web page.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
AirPlay is really for specific content at this point. I'm referring to the future of video out on tablets in general. And I didn't mention it as a knock against the iPad today, just a heads up that in some future version of the iPad you won't need a physical adapter (at least not on your tablet). When you have full wireless display mirroring then you can start introducing more interesting usage models - e.g. tablet as a desktop replacement, tablet as a game console, etc... You can do these things without wireless display but they are definitely enhanced by it being there.Take care,
Anand
Ushio01 - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
When ifixit did there teardown of the first ipad it was shown that apart from the battery and the antennas all the other components were kept up the top so why can't a tablet simply be a dock you slot a smartphone in that supplies a larger screen and additional battery's?That to me is a far more appealing device than current tablets.
kmmatney - Monday, March 21, 2011 - link
makes sense to me. I can't see Apple doing this, but maybe on of the Android makers can come up with something along these lines. I'd love to be able to pop my phone into the back of a tablet and use the bigger screen. I'd just keep it near the couch.zmatt - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
I still hold that the entire market segment (not just the iPad) is a solution looking for a problem. The idea seems cool but in reality nobody was asking for the tablet. And after using them I still can't see what the attractiveness is other than people buying them cause they are "cool". I take calls and get mobile updates on my Galaxy S, which is more than competent enough for light work such as taking down notes or answering emails on the go. Any real work I do with a computer. I'm sorry but you can't make up for the lack of performance and a real keyboard if you are talking about getting work done. The iPad may be nice for mobile entertainment, but if i already have an mp3 player and a laptop what can it do that they can't? For tablets to be viable productivity devices and not just toys i think they would basically have to evolve into laptops. So again i ask, what's the point?cucurigu - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Thanks a lot for your review, Anand, Brian and Vivek - I was waiting for your opinion on the iPad 2 as it was a gadget most appealing but, as you said, very polarizing for the reviewers.There is something I didn't really understand, even after rereading the Xoom review - both you (Anand and Brian) said the first iPad wasn't your cup of tea in the long run and chances are the new one won't change this (but you're giving it another go). The general impression (one which I also got while looking at the tablet segment) is characterized by their unclear niche - where do they really fit ?
If I understand correctly the first tablet (ipad) didn't integrate with your workflow and the reasons seem to apply to all tablets, however, this sentiment doesn't come off so clearly from the Xoom article - so I wondered : did you have the impression the Android OS was more adequate to your usage patterns ? Meaning, if the Xoom and iPad 2 where left on your desk, which one would you choose to take with you, and for which purpose ?
Once again, thanks and best regards !