Electronics New Apple Tablet - Page 70

**dirk digler** · 01-27-2010, 12:12 PM

Cool stuff. On Engadget live right now

http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/l...est&refresh=30

The Rick · 03-03-2011, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

Please. What apps does the App store have that Android does not?

Netflix
Hulu

The Rick · 03-03-2011, 03:54 PM

Shown during yesterday's iPad 2 event:

Silock · 03-03-2011, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BCD

Please. What apps does the App store have that Android does not?

3,000 versions of Facebook apps. I ****IN' NEED THAT SHIT, MAN!

**AustinChief** · 03-03-2011, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Param

Apple's hardware is just fine compared to the Xoom, Playbook, and Touchpad. The iPad has an LED-backlit IPS LCD. The other 3 do not. ipad 1 starts at $400, ipad 2 starts at $500. iPad has sold over 10+ million units. How are they a failure or failed? This makes absolutely no sense. The app store kicks the crap out of Android Market.

Just as you elaborated on future specs, the iPad will improve on specs with future versions.

Will the Android tablets be heavily subsidized like the phones were? Probably not. So go out and buy a Xoom for $800

the FAIL is that they released a NEW tablet (iPad2) that isn't as good as the current batch of Android tablets... IF they release an iPad3 before the end of the year, then I can see them staying relevant... if they don't then they will continue to slip further and further behind in regards to hardware.

Honeycomb is a better OS, the Android app store is growing at a much faster rate than Apple's and will catch up easily this year... but the KICKER is that Android is open so you will see COMPETITION in the marketplace... which will increase the rate of innovation while driving down prices.

Apple's business model failed in the MAC/PC wars ... and will fail with tablets as well... it worked with MP3 players due to a combination of fantastic marketing and (mostly) mismanagement by the other players in the market (Diamond, Creative, etc) by the time Microsoft and others got in the game people like myself had no need for stand alone MP3 players since all the new phones could play MP3s... that won't be the case with the tablet market, unless it stays a "novelty" item which I doubt is going to be the case.

btw, though I have never had a use for an ipod or ipad.. I have bought plenty for ex-girlfriends and the such.. so it's not like I refuse to buy Apple products...

NewChief · 03-03-2011, 04:18 PM

This was one of my friends FB statuses. She has a son with sensory issues who doesn't really talk:

Quote:

Now that Lucas is "talking" with his iPad, he's certainly more demanding. He just asked for his second lunch of the day. And I'm happy to make it. Very cool!

Kind of cool, especially considering the usually insane cost of adaptive technology.

**AustinChief** · 03-03-2011, 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Fish

Pages
Numbers
Keynote

Just to name a few...

a better questions is... what app functionality is missing... for example, yes Netflix isn't available but Blockbuster is...

Now, I will admit that it will be a few months before TABLET apps catch up...

**dirk digler** · 03-03-2011, 04:51 PM

I still believe most average tablet buyers don't care about hardware specs but then again I could be wrong..

http://gizmodo.com/#!5775220/specs-still-matter-or-ipad-2-vs-motorola-xoom

Specs Still Matter (Or: iPad 2 vs. Motorola Xoom)

Apps are the most important part of any tablet right now. But great apps need great hardware to run, no matter what Apple says.

"A lot of folks in the tablet market are rushing in and they're looking at this as the next PC…and they're talking about speeds and feeds just like they did with PCs." That's what Steve Jobs says about specs in this new "post-PC" world of tablets and smartphones.

Ironically, where speeds and feeds don't matter as much anymore for the average user is in the PC world, because hardware there is, in most cases, "good enough." But in the mobile world—where smartphones and tablets are evolving very quickly—they still matter more than they do in PCs. Even if they're not an end to themselves. They are, after all, what enable the software magic to happen.

They're what make games like Infinity Blade look and feel incredible. Produce astoundingly good photos. Sear our eyeballs with intensely beautiful colors and thousands and thousand of pixels on a screen. They're what allow software to have the shimmer of verisimilitude, responding to every touch and intention instantly, so it feels like we're actually manipulating something real, not a bundle of code and graphics.

So how do the iPad 2 and Android's best tablet to date, the Motorola Xoom, compare in specs? And when does it matter?

They're both using customized chips based around 1GHz dual-core processors, wrapped up with hardy graphics chips. The Motorola Xoom's Nvidia Tegra 2 has a dual-core heart of ARM's Cortex A9, which is very probably the soul of the iPad 2's A5 chip too. The GeForce graphics bundled in the PowerVR SGX543 graphics, as has been reported. In processing and graphics power, it stands to reason—at least until a proper teardown—that the iPad 2 and Xoom are about equally capable. The Xoom is verrrry fast, and that seems to be what people thought about the iPad 2 yesterday. Speed and its proper application matters as much as, if not more than, anything else.

The iPad 2's memory situation is still officially a mystery, which is deeply unfortunate. RAM isn't an idle spec: It's deeply indicative of how well it'll multitask, and—this is a huge deal—how well things like Safari will work. If it's got 512MB, it should be okay. The Xoom's got 1GB. The Xoom multitasks, flipping between apps and running tons of tabs in the browser, like a champ. And the multitasking interface for Android 3.0 makes it feel faster still.

A lot of the Xoom's other numbers are bigger than the iPad 2's. The screen is larger, with more pixels. It's 10.1 inches, with the 1280x800 resolution delivering 150ppi, to the iPad 2's 1024x768 screen, which offers 136ppi. So text on the Xoom can be slightly crisper. The Xoom's cameras are better too, at least on paper. The rear camera shoots 5-megapixel photos, while the front is 2MP. (Neither are particularly impressive in practice, though.) The iPad 2's rear camera shoots 720p video like the Xoom, but the stills are lower resolution. The front camera is only VGA (640x480). (Does that mean they'll be less impressive? The iPod touch's very similar-sounding camera was no showstopper, but the iPhone 4's 5-megapixel camera outshot 8-megapixel cameras in other phones.) The Xoom will have more Gees too, when it's upgraded to 4G on Verizon. The iPad 2 is theoretically faster for now on AT&T with 3G. Does all that make the Xoom automatically better than the iPad 2?

To a certain set of people, yes. What's key, though, is that the Xoom—along with any other tablet—doesn't outclass the iPad on any of the specs that Apple clearly thinks are most important. Processing power is (probably just about) even. The screen resolution is smaller, but the iPad display's proportions make it more flexible than the Xoom—it's truly designed to be used in portrait or landscape orientation, while the Xoom is almost 100 percent a landscape-oriented device. Battery life is better. Most important of all to Apple (and it's betting, to consumers), the iPad is cheaper. Everything else, beyond the screen and speed—like the cameras—are just good enough. Not amazing.

Oddly, part of the reason specs still matter to the extent that they do is because we're at a point where we can still feel their limitations. Like, the reason it was painful that the first iPad only had 256MB of RAM is that Safari would constantly dump the content in your open tabs because it was always running out of memory. The number doesn't matter, except that it does have a very real consequence on the way people browse the web on the iPad. More powerful hardware allows more powerful software, with more features and better performance that translate into things that make people happier. When we get to a point hardware isn't a limit on software, then it'll cease to matter completely. That doesn't seem likely anytime soon: Software and features somehow always manage to keep up with the hardware.

Hardware without software is meaningless. But software can't exist without hardware.

Silock · 03-03-2011, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

a better questions is... what app functionality is missing... for example, yes Netflix isn't available but Blockbuster is...

Wow, that's the same argument I used for the iPad when we were talking about Flash alternatives.

Silock · 03-03-2011, 05:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

Apple's business model failed in the MAC/PC wars ... and will fail with tablets as well... it worked with MP3 players due to a combination of fantastic marketing and (mostly) mismanagement by the other players in the market (Diamond, Creative, etc) by the time Microsoft and others got in the game people like myself had no need for stand alone MP3 players since all the new phones could play MP3s... that won't be the case with the tablet market, unless it stays a "novelty" item which I doubt is going to be the case.

I think that depends on your definition of "fail." They obviously didn't have the same market share. But the company is obviously doing something right, considering it's, like, the most profitable company in the world (note: Or at least one of*).

kcxiv · 03-03-2011, 06:24 PM

I dont think the tablets are worth it, but that doesnt mean i dont want one. I am just not willing to pay the crazy prices. Id rather just buy a cheap ass laptop.

i still want one. lol

**BigMeatballDave** · 03-03-2011, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

3,000 versions of Facebook apps. I ****IN' NEED THAT SHIT, MAN!

Good to see I got your panties in a bunch

**AustinChief** · 03-03-2011, 06:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silock

Wow, that's the same argument I used for the iPad when we were talking about Flash alternatives.

not quite... wait, not at all... I am talking a 1:1 comparison like netflix vs blockbuster not some hodgepodge of proprietary apps that claim to be as useful...

If the iPad supported Silverlight and Android tablets supported Flash.. (and people actually used Silverlight) then you would have the same argument.

Comparative logic FAIL

Fact is.. there is no APP that replaces the ability to seamlessly browse the web without getting a constant barrage of "you need to download the latest FLASH player" messages...

**AustinChief** · 03-03-2011, 07:01 PM

Here is a decent take on where things are headed... http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2381389,00.asp

Quote:

All this will available on pretty much be on any tablet, and I'm not seeing the clear edge Apple got from four years of head-start development work. Most reviewers think the Xoom is a better device, except for the price. But the clear winner will be some cheap Android down the road and not anything that's available today

Dvorak has been writing about tech for as long as I can remember and has a great grasp on the directions things will likely go...

WoodDraw · 03-03-2011, 07:08 PM

A great question is, why is Motorola charging -higher- prices than Apple when they have no R&D associated? Same with the other "Google experience" devices.

It's a complete joke, and another reason why I continue to hate almost every hardware developer Google works with. Google is consistently held back more by their friends than their enemies.

[edit]

Obviously, I don't mean no R&D. But compared to Apple developing hardward and software from nothing, and Motorola being given a running version of Honeycomb specifically designed for the Xoom...

KevB · 03-03-2011, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AustinChief

not quite... wait, not at all... I am talking a 1:1 comparison like netflix vs blockbuster not some hodgepodge of proprietary apps that claim to be as useful...

If the iPad supported Silverlight and Android tablets supported Flash.. (and people actually used Silverlight) then you would have the same argument.

Comparative logic FAIL

Fact is.. there is no APP that replaces the ability to seamlessly browse the web without getting a constant barrage of "you need to download the latest FLASH player" messages...

I'm not going to argue your last sentence, that's a real concern for me as I compare these two with the intent to buy. But saying Netflix and Blockbuster are the same isn't being honest. I have Netflix, and I'm not switching to Blockbuster based on a tablet. I have a feeling many feel the same. In theory, they offer the same service. But I consume content on other devices as well, and Netflix is ingrained within those options while Blockbuster isn't.

01-27-2010, 12:12 PM
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $3364644	New Apple Tablet Cool stuff. On Engadget live right now http://www.engadget.com/2010/01/27/l...est&refresh=30
Posts: 66,241

03-03-2011, 03:54 PM	#1037
The Rick Veteran Join Date: Aug 2000 Location: Milwaukee, WI Casino cash: $7601320	Shown during yesterday's iPad 2 event:
Posts: 2,438

03-03-2011, 04:51 PM	#1042
dirk digler Please squeeze Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Clinton, MO Casino cash: $3364644	I still believe most average tablet buyers don't care about hardware specs but then again I could be wrong.. http://gizmodo.com/#!5775220/specs-still-matter-or-ipad-2-vs-motorola-xoom Specs Still Matter (Or: iPad 2 vs. Motorola Xoom) Apps are the most important part of any tablet right now. But great apps need great hardware to run, no matter what Apple says. "A lot of folks in the tablet market are rushing in and they're looking at this as the next PC…and they're talking about speeds and feeds just like they did with PCs." That's what Steve Jobs says about specs in this new "post-PC" world of tablets and smartphones. Ironically, where speeds and feeds don't matter as much anymore for the average user is in the PC world, because hardware there is, in most cases, "good enough." But in the mobile world—where smartphones and tablets are evolving very quickly—they still matter more than they do in PCs. Even if they're not an end to themselves. They are, after all, what enable the software magic to happen. They're what make games like Infinity Blade look and feel incredible. Produce astoundingly good photos. Sear our eyeballs with intensely beautiful colors and thousands and thousand of pixels on a screen. They're what allow software to have the shimmer of verisimilitude, responding to every touch and intention instantly, so it feels like we're actually manipulating something real, not a bundle of code and graphics. So how do the iPad 2 and Android's best tablet to date, the Motorola Xoom, compare in specs? And when does it matter? They're both using customized chips based around 1GHz dual-core processors, wrapped up with hardy graphics chips. The Motorola Xoom's Nvidia Tegra 2 has a dual-core heart of ARM's Cortex A9, which is very probably the soul of the iPad 2's A5 chip too. The GeForce graphics bundled in the PowerVR SGX543 graphics, as has been reported. In processing and graphics power, it stands to reason—at least until a proper teardown—that the iPad 2 and Xoom are about equally capable. The Xoom is verrrry fast, and that seems to be what people thought about the iPad 2 yesterday. Speed and its proper application matters as much as, if not more than, anything else. The iPad 2's memory situation is still officially a mystery, which is deeply unfortunate. RAM isn't an idle spec: It's deeply indicative of how well it'll multitask, and—this is a huge deal—how well things like Safari will work. If it's got 512MB, it should be okay. The Xoom's got 1GB. The Xoom multitasks, flipping between apps and running tons of tabs in the browser, like a champ. And the multitasking interface for Android 3.0 makes it feel faster still. A lot of the Xoom's other numbers are bigger than the iPad 2's. The screen is larger, with more pixels. It's 10.1 inches, with the 1280x800 resolution delivering 150ppi, to the iPad 2's 1024x768 screen, which offers 136ppi. So text on the Xoom can be slightly crisper. The Xoom's cameras are better too, at least on paper. The rear camera shoots 5-megapixel photos, while the front is 2MP. (Neither are particularly impressive in practice, though.) The iPad 2's rear camera shoots 720p video like the Xoom, but the stills are lower resolution. The front camera is only VGA (640x480). (Does that mean they'll be less impressive? The iPod touch's very similar-sounding camera was no showstopper, but the iPhone 4's 5-megapixel camera outshot 8-megapixel cameras in other phones.) The Xoom will have more Gees too, when it's upgraded to 4G on Verizon. The iPad 2 is theoretically faster for now on AT&T with 3G. Does all that make the Xoom automatically better than the iPad 2? To a certain set of people, yes. What's key, though, is that the Xoom—along with any other tablet—doesn't outclass the iPad on any of the specs that Apple clearly thinks are most important. Processing power is (probably just about) even. The screen resolution is smaller, but the iPad display's proportions make it more flexible than the Xoom—it's truly designed to be used in portrait or landscape orientation, while the Xoom is almost 100 percent a landscape-oriented device. Battery life is better. Most important of all to Apple (and it's betting, to consumers), the iPad is cheaper. Everything else, beyond the screen and speed—like the cameras—are just good enough. Not amazing. Oddly, part of the reason specs still matter to the extent that they do is because we're at a point where we can still feel their limitations. Like, the reason it was painful that the first iPad only had 256MB of RAM is that Safari would constantly dump the content in your open tabs because it was always running out of memory. The number doesn't matter, except that it does have a very real consequence on the way people browse the web on the iPad. More powerful hardware allows more powerful software, with more features and better performance that translate into things that make people happier. When we get to a point hardware isn't a limit on software, then it'll cease to matter completely. That doesn't seem likely anytime soon: Software and features somehow always manage to keep up with the hardware. Hardware without software is meaningless. But software can't exist without hardware.
Posts: 66,241

03-03-2011, 06:24 PM	#1045
kcxiv In Search of a Life Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Central Valley, Cali Casino cash: $8807996	I dont think the tablets are worth it, but that doesnt mean i dont want one. I am just not willing to pay the crazy prices. Id rather just buy a cheap ass laptop. i still want one. lol
Posts: 29,110

03-03-2011, 07:08 PM	#1049
WoodDraw Veteran Join Date: Mar 2004 Casino cash: $10005059	A great question is, why is Motorola charging -higher- prices than Apple when they have no R&D associated? Same with the other "Google experience" devices. It's a complete joke, and another reason why I continue to hate almost every hardware developer Google works with. Google is consistently held back more by their friends than their enemies. [edit] Obviously, I don't mean no R&D. But compared to Apple developing hardward and software from nothing, and Motorola being given a running version of Honeycomb specifically designed for the Xoom...
Posts: 3,785

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode