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
VivekGowri - Saturday, March 19, 2011 - link
I think it's $799, but I agree, it's too high. The equivalent iPad, at $729, is also way up there - really the only iPad that makes much sense as far as value goes is the base 16GB WiFi. I think the Xoom is probably going to have it's price cut by at least $100, if not $200, before it actually gets anywhere - ASUS took the right tack by putting it's lowest end Honeycomb tablet at $399.KoolAidMan1 - Saturday, March 19, 2011 - link
Where the iPad really works for me is as a travel device and in the living room. The iPad is just much nicer to use with in-flight wifi. Small, no cable management, and the battery will outlast a LAX-JFK roundtrip. My laptop lives in the overhead storage bin.You mentioned that the iPad has replaced the ThinkPad in airports, and I think that is spot-on. It is just so much more convenient and manageable to use compared to a laptop. I've left the laptop at home twice and I didn't miss it much, aside from not being able to play Starcraft 2 when I'm on the road. :)
The "sharing" aspect of the device has great advantages in a work environment, especially when you want to go over PDFs with a group of people. No need to crowd around or turn a laptop, just pass around the iPad.
As for the living room and bedroom, self explanatory. Not being tethered to the home office in order to fire off email is nice. Ditto using it as a universal remote in the living room.
It is a luxury device and a supplement, absolutely, but a damn good one.
nickdoc - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Finally a sensible person. We are definitely on the same page.kevith - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
"You're absolutely right" almost always really means: "I totally agree..." :-)relentlessfocus - Saturday, March 19, 2011 - link
As always a real insight into the hardware. I'd like to make an observation about generalising from your own inability to find something that tablets add to your PC./smartphone mix to the larger sphere of buyers. Indeed most are not crazy and overly rich.My friends have a 2 year old child. I have no doubt that eventually she'll be reacting with laptops and desktops but my oh my how much my friends talk about the 3 of them with the iPad. Not an Anandtech thing... fine. A real life use. I think so.
Jake Humphrys is the lead for BBC's Formula 1 coverage here in the UK. While talking live in the pits with his co-commentators he now holds an iPad cupped in his hand that he gracefully reads from and then puts to his side as he gets live update info from his directors as the show is broadcast. OK, its not an Anandtech thing but its a real life use for a tablet that you wouldn't do with a netbook or notebook.
It's being used by coaching staff in sports and by doctors making their rounds in hospitals. It's used by major corporations for field workers running in house bespoke apps for catalogues and inventory and real time pricing etc. It's used by estate agents in the field with their clients and its used in trendy clothing shops like All Saints to display the entire store catalog for customers to browse. I could without a doubt put together 100 real life uses that "did figure out a use for it" distinctive from what you might do with a netbook or laptop or even desktop.
Your reviews set the gold standard in so many ways but in this one way its a shame you brought such a limited perspective to the usefulness of touch tablets in the world at large. I understand that people who do certain kinds of work really do find that a touch tablet device may not be useful, indeed you may not own a pickup truck or headphone amplifier. But the slant of your article and some of the comments above implies a great generality than I think can be justified.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Saturday, March 19, 2011 - link
First of all, thank you for your kind words - I really do appreciate them.I don't doubt that there are specific uses for a tablet that a notebook cannot do as well. I mentioned one of these in the review - simply passing around the iPad for others to look at, information sharing, it's a lot easier to do this than with a clunky notebook.
My point about the usefulness is that it's currently not powerful enough, flexible enough and ergonomic enough to completely replace a notebook. I'm not saying it won't get there, but I don't believe it's there today. The iPad 2 is a great device, but it's an augment to existing computing devices - and for some users that's tough to integrate into their existing workflow.
If you can find a fit that makes sense however, it's a great device.
Take care,
Anand
Azethoth - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
Good article. However I do not think the point of tablets and smartphones are to replace netbooks. I think their point is to compete on apps. If they can do something critical to someone better than another form factor then they win a sale. I think it will turn out there are more apps that are tablet appropriate than netbook appropriate.Unless there are more interface revolutions I just do not think there can be a 100% intersection between netbook and tablet utility. So while netbooks will remain better at the things a lot of people complain about not being able to do on a tablet, tablets will eat their lunch market share wise because of the many more things they do good enough or perfectly.
Fontanka - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
"Workflow ", "Use", "Users","Usefulness".........That's not what most of the 15 million purchasers (and counting) are thinking about....they want to communicate, be entertained and diverted when NOT WORKING. The iPad delivers.
Fontanka
WaltFrench - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
@Anand, let me second the kind words of @relentlessfocus.And also his point: a tablet and a notebook are largely incommensurable.
Lightweight, sub $1000 notebooks with 11-hour battery life, compressed learning times and near-instant app startup don't exist.
Likewise, notebooks don't have anywhere near the touchscreen's I/O capabilities, which you call out as great in iMovie and GarageBand. (I'd add the iOS app I use for writing Chinese as part of my studies, and the painting app used by high profile artists to create New Yorker covers.) Then, there's a new mix of software appropriate to mobile life, including the many “specialized” apps @relentlessfocus offered.
I get that, by definition, our current workflows can't be optimized on a tablet. (Mine, with multiple screens on the desktop, and a bigscreen laptop, would be horrible. Why would I even think to try?) These things are "technical disruptors," "creative destructors," "inventor's dilemmas," however you want to characterize them. They enable new usage modes at the same time that they're not as good, or downright awful, for the old ones. They serve new customers better than the old; this is all old hat ever since Shiva got incorporated into the pantheon.
But thanks for such a complete review, for those of us who happen to be dabbling in devices that enable new functions, new activities.
Anand Lal Shimpi - Sunday, March 20, 2011 - link
I believe we're actually in agreement here. The tablet is a disruptive form factor and a disruptive device. In the article I state that I believe there's a glorious future for tablets, however I believe we're still at an early point in the evolution. Since we're operating on a faster-than-moore'slaw-curve here, you're looking at a 12 month product cycle with these things. As such I believe a cautious approach to investment is better, especially given the price points we're talking about.By all means, if you have the money to spend and have a genuine use for it - the iPad 2 is a great device. I'm genuinely giving the iPad 2 another chance, I really wanted to use the iPad 1 I just found myself carrying it and a notebook wherever I went.
For example, I'm traveling now for CTIA but I brought the MacBook Air. I'd much prefer reading comments on the iPad 2, but I like responding to them on the Air. I don't really know what the right solution is to that problem. It can't be to have one device for reading web pages and another device for contributing to web sites? I believe there's still a lot of work to be done here, that's all I'm saying - not that the iPad or the tablet are doomed.
Take care,
Anand