Hacker News Reader

Comment by VonLipwig | Hacker News Reader

I completely agree with the article though I think it misses what the iPad 3 is. I think most tech commenators miss the point.

Apple isn't a traditional tech company. The majority of Apples 'new products' aren't new at all. They are just a new iteration of an existing product.

Many tech commentators look at the iPad 3 and see it as make or break. They want reason's why you would toss aside your iPad 2 and buy an iPad 3. The fact is though, if you don't want to piss away your money you will not get an iPad 3 if you own an iPad 2.

Its like like if you own a 2010 iMac you didn't buy a 2011 iMac (I assume there was a 2010/11 iMac). While the latest model is superior, quicker, has better gizmo's etc. The one you have is just fine.

The iPad 3 will be the continued evolution of the iPad product, just as the iPad 2 was. This isn't a new product, Apple is just continuing to keep its product up to date.

View on HN

> if you don't want to piss away your money you will not get an iPad 3 if you own an iPad 2

I don't want to piss away my money, but that Retina display is what I'm after. I sold my iPad when I bought an iPhone because the display was just too damn ugly in comparison... I am excited about the iPad 3 for just this reason.

> The fact is though, if you don't want to piss away your money you will not get an iPad 3 if you own an iPad 2.

Or you could wait until it's unveiled before deciding whether it is worth buying.

> The fact is though, if you don't want to piss away your money you will not get an iPad 3 if you own an iPad 2.

The sad other fact is that people who upgrade the iPad 1 may do so for much more frustrating reasons than blogs want to write about. iOS5's Safari and sometimes even Springboard are so slow on my iPad 1 that I am really tempted to upgrade to the iPad 3 just for that. Frustrating mostly because iOS 3.2 felt like riding a rocket and I don't use any new features introduced since then.

I'll be getting an iPad 3 (got a '2 on launch last year)

The main reason being I can probably sell my iPad2 for £250-£300, Apple products tend not to depreciate in value (much) so the cost isn't that prohibitive when you're on the iOS device ladder

>Apple products tend not to depreciate in value (much) so the cost isn't that prohibitive

Don't you think there are many iPad owners out there who are thinking the same thing ? Were are you all going to dump your iPad 2 at the same time ? Especially if it has a killer feature that makes a lot of people want to upgrade and also makes the old iPad less desirable. Also include the original iPad users who will be upgrading. My guess is second hand iPad market is going to take a dive when iPad 3 comes out, so selling before that point might be a better idea, if you can live without your iPad for few weeks or so.

I agree with you but I think your iMac analogy is exactly is the one of main sources of the "controversy" regarding iPhone and iPad product updates. When you update your desktop Mac after 3-4 years for $1500, you expect to see obviously visible improvements for your money. The upgrade cycle for phones and tablets is probably much shorter, due to lower product prices and physical limitations such as battery lifespan. Even though the prices are lower and upgrades are more frequent, I think some people expect to see the same kind of improvements they enjoy with their desktop computers or notebooks; notably, much faster CPU, much more RAM, much more storage space and so on.

Huh? All their PCs improved little in 3–4 years, definitely on a level (or maybe even a bit worse) with what you get when you upgrade your iPhone or iPad every other year.

There is nothing happening with PCs, only boring spec-bumps and maybe a port more or less. The only interesting thing that did happen was the introduction of ultra-books – and even that was years ago.

CPUs and GPUs get faster, but PCs are already extremely fast. There is much more headroom for improvement with mobile devices, their spec bumps are actually good for something.

I don’t see the point you are making at all. Upgrading every other year gets you loads of improvements.

If you buy an iMac now you get the same old boring thing you could get three years ago. Do you really think non-nerds will be able to tell the difference? Heck, even I think that there is little to no practical difference between a 2012 and a 2009 iMac. They are the same goddamn thing (for all intents and purposes).

Agreed. I have a 2008 MBP that is still more than adequate for any task I require of it. And believe me, I put that thing through the ringer on a near-daily basis.

Unless you're a professional film editor or a gamer (and, in the latter case, I'm not sure why you'd be using a Mac), you really don't need to replace Macs every 3 to 4 years. Especially desktops. The desktop market has matured, and it is moving along at a relatively incremental, unexciting pace. There's surprisingly little difference between a 4-year-old iMac and today's iMac, aside from some relatively minor spec upgrades and a new port.

> The iPad 3 will be the continued evolution of the iPad product, just as the iPad 2 was. This isn't a new product, Apple is just continuing to keep its product up to date.

The branding seems to contradict that idea. If it's just an update, then why not just keep calling it "the iPad", without appending a Big Shiny Version Digit? You know, like they do with all of their other desktop and notebook products?

Really? You complain about the name†? Are you serious? How petty is that?!

Apple rarely does radically new devices. That happens maybe once every three years or so. They also support older devices for a relatively long time when it comes to mobile devices (and for a relatively short time – but still not really short, but short compared to Microsoft – when it comes to PCs).

Look at what they do, don’t try to read something into their product names.

—

† Which we don’t even know yet.

> If it's just an update, then why not just keep calling it "the iPad", without appending a Big Shiny Version Digit?

Because eventually there's going to be an iOS version or an application that only runs well on version X of the iPad. It's a lot easier for a user to understand "Only works on iPad 2 or better" then to understand "Only works on iPads manufactured on or after March xth 2012".

It’s a slightly different situation but that’s essentially what they are doing with Macs, saying this-and-that is compatible with the MacBook Pro (early 2009) and such.

It is also common to refer to the Macs with their iteration+variant number, e.g mine is a MacBook Pro 5,5

System Information was actually the easiest way to get such a specifier before Lion, which now shows the "MacBook Pro 13-inch, Mid-2009" in the brand new "More Info..." of "About This Mac".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com