[steelbom]

Quote:

Apple opted to use older silicone technology for the screen of its third-generation iPad after initial plans to utilise a lighter, thinner display fell through, according to reports.

Display expert and DisplayMate Technologies President Raymond Soneira claims the new iPad was set to feature cutting-edge display technology from Sharp called IGZO, but was later forced to settle for amorphous silicone, possibly due to Sharp not meeting Apple's quality standards.

The silicone display used in the new iPad also required a larger battery, which, in turn, contributed to its slightly heavier weight compared to its predecessor, the iPad 2.

Source

 

[Nintendo Maniac 64]

I find it interesting that Apple would be looking into cutting-edge technology for LCDs rather than something OLED-based...

 

[Bitech]

Why can't they just call it the iPad 2S or something like they did with the iPhone 4S if it's not advanced enough to be full blown "iPad 3"?

 

[cavallino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitech

Why can't they just call it the iPad 2S or something like they did with the iPhone 4S if it's not advanced enough to be full blown "iPad 3"?

People will be more likely to buy it if it's Ipad 3 or Ipad or anything new sounding. Ipad 2S will just sound like a revision.

 

[bencher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by cavallino

People will be more likely to buy it if it's Ipad 3 or Ipad or anything new sounding. Ipad 2S will just sound like a revision.

But...How is this iPad not a revision?

 

[last_exile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bitech

Why can't they just call it the iPad 2S or something like they did with the iPhone 4S if it's not advanced enough to be full blown "iPad 3"?

They didn't call it the iPad 3. They called it "The New iPad." the "3" was coined by the public.

 

[cavallino]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bencher

But...How is this iPad not a revision?

Oh it is a revision. My point it they didn't want to call it a revision because less people will buy a revision vs something "all new". It's just marketing.

 

[bgtrance]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bencher

But...How is this iPad not a revision?

The hardware is not the same in the new Ipad and Ipad 2. Just because the shape/style is the same does not imply the models are revisions of one another.

 

[bencher]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bgtrance

The hardware is not the same in the new Ipad and Ipad 2. Just because the shape/style is the same does not imply the models are revisions of one another.

90% of it is the same. You know what i am talking about.

 

[raclimja]

Quote:

Originally Posted by bencher

90% of it is the same. You know what i am talking about.

wait what?

the GPU
the RAM
the display
the battery
the camera
the connectivity (LTE)

 

[Bitech]

Quote:

Originally Posted by last_exile

They didn't call it the iPad 3. They called it "The New iPad." the "3" was coined by the public.

I wouldn't have made my post if I didn't know any of that. You read my post all wrong.
Quote:

Originally Posted by cavallino
People will be more likely to buy it if it's Ipad 3 or Ipad or anything new sounding. Ipad 2S will just sound like a revision.

http://www.intomobile.com/2011/10/17/apple-sells-more-than-4-million-iphone-4s-units-just-3-days-thats-double-iphone-4-sales-rate/

The way we view a product's name is all a matter of opinion. And I'm not just talking about calling it the "2S", any name for that matter that would not be confused with the original iPad, like iPad alpha or beta would be better than "the new iPad", and the general public agrees it's really confusing even if it's not the iPad 3.

The "new iPad" is no longer going to be "new" later on, and Apple hasn't really put much thought on it. What will people think?

"OH the "new iPad"? The one that came after the iPad 2 but before the iPad 3? Not really "new" anymore."

 

[HopeUTKN]

Quote:

Originally Posted by raclimja

wait what?
the GPU
the RAM
the display
the battery
the camera
the connectivity (LTE)

If you think about it, only the screen, camera and connectivity are upgrades from the previous generations. Better GPU/CPU, yes, because a better screen. More RAM, yes, because it is needed for a better screen. Bigger battery, yes, since more power consuming screen.

 

[guyladouche]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nintendo Maniac 64

I find it interesting that Apple would be looking into cutting-edge technology for LCDs rather than something OLED-based...

This is likely the main reason (care of wikipedia):
Quote:

Indium gallium zinc oxide is a semiconducting material which can be used as the channel for a transparent thin-film transistor. It replaces amorphous silicon for the active layer of an LCD screen, and, with a forty times higher electron mobility than amorphous silicon, it allows either smaller pixels (for screen resolutions higher than HDTV) or much higher reaction speed for a screen.

Probably because Apple was obsessed with cramming more pixels into a form-factor.

Also, it was my impression that OLED displays don't do as well as LCD displays in moderate ambient lighting. And that unless you're displaying a lot of black frames, OLED power consumption isn't as good (and gets even worse as you display more and more white background frames).

I was also under the impression that OLED manufacturing is not quite advanced beyond the screen sizes used in phones.

 

[Mach 5]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HopeUTKN

If you think about it, only the screen, camera and connectivity are upgrades from the previous generations. Better GPU/CPU, yes, because a better screen. More RAM, yes, because it is needed for a better screen. Bigger battery, yes, since more power consuming screen.

This. The hardware might be new and improved but the performance hasn't changed.

 

[SkullTrail]

Makes a lot of sense. Apple has never really gone backwards with their incoming generations.

 

[born2bwild]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mach 5

This. The hardware might be new and improved but the performance hasn't changed.

The new iPad is a major upgrade, since most of its components have been upgraded.

To understand this better, I will give you an analogous situation; I recently upgraded from a 1080p monitor, an i7 950, 6870 Crossfire, and a 750W PSU to a 1600p monitor, an i7 970, a GTX 680 SLI and a 1250W PSU. I end up getting pretty much the same FPS with the 6870s @ 1080p when compared to GTX 680 SLI @ 1600p... So, in your opinion, my computing experience did not change? And the upgrade to my PC was "minor"?

No this was a major upgrade; sure, my FPS stayed the same (60FPS+ in nearly all situation games), but the new monitor dramatically improved my viewing experience. It's the same thing with the iPad.

 

[Kaze105]

Quote:

Originally Posted by born2bwild

The new iPad is a major upgrade, since most of its components have been upgraded.
To understand this better, I will give you an analogous situation; I recently upgraded from a 1080p monitor, an i7 950, 6870 Crossfire, and a 750W PSU to a 1600p monitor, an i7 970, a GTX 680 SLI and a 1250W PSU. I end up getting pretty much the same FPS with the 6870s @ 1080p when compared to GTX 680 SLI @ 1600p... So, in your opinion, my computing experience did not change? And the upgrade to my PC was "minor"?
No this was a major upgrade; sure, my FPS stayed the same (60FPS+ in nearly all situation games), but the new monitor dramatically improved my viewing experience. It's the same thing with the iPad.

Ive personally found it to be like this. From someone who knows the technical aspects of the new ipad, its a major upgrade. Excellent screen, performance with LTE is also fantastic. From someone who doesnt know much, they tend to be confused between the difference. On launch day, I remember seeing tons of people going back and forth between the new ipad and ipad 2 trying to find a difference. During that time, one person found the new ipad thicker and he was amazed that there was a difference.

 

[steelbom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaze105

Ive personally found it to be like this. From someone who knows the technical aspects of the new ipad, its a major upgrade. Excellent screen, performance with LTE is also fantastic. From someone who doesnt know much, they tend to be confused between the difference. On launch day, I remember seeing tons of people going back and forth between the new ipad and ipad 2 trying to find a difference. During that time, one person found the new ipad thicker and he was amazed that there was a difference.

The iPad 3 only brought the retina display and 4G but the former alone is a significant enough upgrade for it to not be a '2S'.

 

[Kaze105]

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelbom

The iPad 3 only brought the retina display and 4G but the former alone is a significant enough upgrade for it to not be a '2S'.

Which im agreeing as I said in my previous post. From my experience though, (with friends, family, workplace, etc) if you dont understand the technical aspect of this, I found that people dont notice the upgrade.

 

[steelbom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kaze105

Quote:

Originally Posted by steelbom

The iPad 3 only brought the retina display and 4G but the former alone is a significant enough upgrade for it to not be a '2S'.

Which im agreeing as I said in my previous post. From my experience though, (with friends, family, workplace, etc) if you dont understand the technical aspect of this, I found that people dont notice the upgrade.

There's a 3 and a 2 in my home and whenever I look at the 2 it looks blurry and pixelated, if you were to show anyone the iPad 3 and iPad 2 side by side the difference would be pretty clear.