The Apple iPad 2 Review
by Brian Klug, Anand Lal Shimpi & Vivek Gowri on March 19, 2011 8:01 PM ESTFinal Words
If you fell in love with the original iPad, the iPad 2 is a significant upgrade. You get much faster hardware, a much more ergonomic device and the ability to FaceTime with your friends. If it weren't for the fact that the iPad 3 is likely 12 months away with another set of similarly impressive upgrades I'd recommend all iPad users upgrade to the 2nd generation model.
I find that with Apple products you have to pick an upgrade cadence and firmly stick to it. In the Mac world it's difficult but not too hard to stick to. Upgrading yearly never makes financial sense so usually putting yourself on a 2 - 3 year cycle for the biggest upgraders usually works. Apple hardware tends to hold its value surprising well so as long as you do a good job of reselling your old stuff, this cadence can work well if you absolutely must have the latest and greatest.
The iOS platforms are a bit more difficult to be patient with. As you can see by the SoC upgrades Apple has thrown into the iPad 2, for the next couple of years you should expect Apple to be upgrading at a rate faster than Moore's Law. Eventually this will level off but for the iPad 2, iPad 3 and probably even the iPad 4 we'll see this sort of aggressive ramp in hardware capabilities. You really have to treat the iPad like a smartphone - it's going to be made significantly less desirable in about 12 months so plan your purchasing accordingly.
Cautious purchasing brings me to my biggest complaint about the iPad 2 - its pricing. Motorola gets a bad rap for pricing the first Xoom at $799, but there's only one iPad 2 that sells at $499. Buy a case, pick one of the higher capacity models, add 3G and you're quickly paying a lot more for the iPad 2 than you would a mainstream PC. Granted Apple doesn't make as much off of the iPad as it does other members of its product lineup, but I still feel the price is too much for a device that can only augment your existing computing devices.
I do wish Apple was able to increase display resolution on the iPad 2, although I suspect that combined with the SoC improvements that may have been a little too much for this generation. It's clear that a higher resolution panel is coming as Apple finally has an OS that properly handles DPI scaling. The real question is when, and is that time soon enough that you can hold off buying an iPad until then?
There's no better place to say this so I'll just put it out there: Apple's commitment to increasing performance deserves serious recognition. Whether or not you like the company, Apple outfitted the iPad 2 with a pair of ARM Cortex A9s and a GPU significantly faster than anything else on the market. Look around and you won't see many apps that can really stress the PowerVR SGX 543MP2 that Apple put in the A5. Make no mistake, this is about building a big install base of high performance mobile devices. Apple is eager to win the hearts of game developers with the A5. Gaming will be an important part of the tablet's evolution and Apple clearly understands that. What happens when your tablet is fast enough to run Halo? Performance matters here, maybe not as much today, but when the entire install base has PowerVR SGX 543MP2s at the bare minimum things will get really interesting.
Apple's fat trimming really improved the iPad 2's ergonomics, and the smart covers only helped improve things. While I wouldn't consider porting the original iPad around due to its limited usefulness in my workflow, the iPad 2 is thin and light enough where I'm less bothered by it. Ultimately I feel like tablets (iPad or not) have to be even thinner and even more ergonomic to really come into their own. The good news is that Apple hasn't done anything too exotic in slimming down the original iPad. I'd expect the second generation of Android tablets to be similarly thin/light.
And that brings us to the controversy, the Honeycomb comparison. The Xoom is the only real competition shipping for the iPad 2 today, but within 60 days we'll likely have competitors from ASUS and Samsung on the market as well. Honeycomb has some serious advantages in the feature department. Multitasking is better under Android 3.0, as are notifications and as of yesterday there's finally Flash support. Apple still provides a smoother UI than Honeycomb, however this time around I'm wondering how much of that might be due to the GPU horsepower behind Tegra 2. While Tegra 2 does well on a lower resolution screen, I feel like it is underpowered to deal with the Xoom's 1280 x 800 display.
Hardware-wise Apple has an ergonomics advantage over the Xoom. While I like holding the Xoom more than the original iPad, I prefer the iPad 2's feel to the Xoom. The Xoom has the edge in camera quality and display resolution, while the iPad 2 has a better looking display and a faster GPU. I still fundamentally believe that web browsing and email are the killer apps for tablets and as such I don't put too much weight in Apple's iPad app advantage. Long term I believe that the most important apps will be available on both platforms, so unless there's an app that you want today that's an iOS exclusive I wouldn't lose sleep over it.
So if you're actually torn between the iPad 2 and the Xoom my best advice is to wait. Apple needs to update iOS in a major way and Honeycomb needs a hardware update. Whichever gets it right first should get your money.
If you don't fall into the borderline camp then the decision is pretty simple. If you need a tablet that runs iOS today, the iPad 2 is great. If you're not sure, you should wait. Tablets are still a couple of generations from being really amazing. Everything between now and then are just steps along the way.
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 !