Mossberg reviews Apple iPad 2: Moves the goal posts; lighter, thinner, more powerful

“The new iPad 2 is about a third thinner and over 10% lighter, yet speedier and more powerful than the original version, which sold a whopping 15 million units in its first nine months and, for many users, challenged their laptops as a digital tool,” Walter S. Mossberg writes for The Wall Street Journal. “And it costs the same as the original.”

“I’ve been testing an iPad 2 for about a week and I like it a lot… Apple’s design wizards have made the new iPad feel much airier,” Mossberg reports. “Placed on a table between the original model and the new Motorola Xoom, it makes the others look bloated… Despite being slimmed down, the new iPad 2 still has the same vivid, large 9.7-inch screen, and claims the same lengthy 10-hour battery as the original… Apps launched and ran a bit quicker and the whole device felt very snappy. It never crashed in my tests, unlike every Android tablet I’ve tested… For most average, nontechie users, I would recommend it over the handful of tablet competitors I’ve tested so far, especially given that the entry price remains attractive.”

Mossberg reports, “The iPad 2 moves the goal posts, by being slimmer and lighter, boosting speed and power, and holding its price advantages, available apps and battery life. As of now, I can comfortably recommend it as the best tablet for average consumers.”

Read more in the full review here.

MacDailyNews Take: So, what would Uncle Walt have his above-average / prosumer / professional tablet users (whoever they are) do? Wait until they’re dead for some iPad wannabe to match the battery life, price, weight, and vibrant, organized, and secure ecosystem that Apple’s original version 1.0 iPad has been offering since last year? Walt’s advice is akin to “Don’t hop on Secretariat, pro jockeys! Wait forever and a day for the unicorn of my delusional dreams!”

Mossberg seemingly hasn’t noticed that nearly all of the “professional” enterprise apps for tablets happen to be *ahem* iPad-only.

Limiting your recommendation to “average consumers” simply makes no sense, Walt. No sense at all. And, no, it doesn’t make you look “fair and balanced” when covering Apple, it just makes careful readers of your reviews question your judgement and/or motive(s).

Related articles:
Unbeatable: Why the iPad wannabes can’t come close to iPad’s price – March 10, 2011
Associated Press reviews Apple iPad 2: Apple pulls further ahead – March 10, 2011
PC Mag reviews Apple iPad 2: The tablet to get; Editors’ Choice – March 10, 2011
Pogue reviews Apple iPad 2: Thinner, lighter, and faster transforms the experience – March 10, 2011
Baig reviews Apple iPad 2: Second to none – March 10, 2011
What’s wrong with Walt Mossberg? – October 22, 2009

32 Comments

  1. Move the goalposts? The other clowns aren’t even playing the same game. Android tablets are playing grab ass aspiring to be PC’s; while the iPad 2, a post-PC device, is gunning for and winning the Super Bowl every single time.

    1. Android competitors are not even playing clean. They tend hit below the belt when competing with Apple. Google has no vision and courage to make a gentleman’s duel. Going by trade standards, Google is practicing product dumping and rampant rip-offs of intellectual properties. This is the worse form of competition. With this practice of giving away something free, Google is not helping American entrepreneurs to be world-class competitors but make them lazy and opportunistic. It like giving American entrepreneurs free fish but do not teach them how to fish. Meanwhile Google is empowering foreign competitors to enfeeble American entrepreneurs because American entrepreneurs are operating in a more stringent environment.

  2. > It never crashed in my tests, unlike every Android tablet I’ve tested.”

    That’s pretty funny… One of Mossberg’s key distinctions is that iPad NEVER crashes and Android ALWAYS crashes. I guess that’s why “average” consumers like it so much, because exceptional geeks and nerds enjoy dealing with tech problems.

  3. As usual, Uncle Walt is careful not to gush over an Apple product for fear of alientating his base, which is made up of substantial numbers of Windows morons.

  4. Read the whole article in the WSJ earlier the morning…
    I am concerned about his comments on the cameras. If sounds like they shortchanged the quality there.
    I was hoping they could use the same cameras as in the phone (not the iPod’s).

    (please… No followup comments of “because I don’t think it’s important, then it can’t possibly be important to anyone else”.)

    1. It may be that the lower quality cameras was a trade-off choice they made to include a much-desired item while still maintaining the price. Higher quality cameras iPhone 4-style may have required a price bump, eliminating the “5 out of 6 versions are cheaper than the Xoom” comment.

      Steve Jobs said himself, “Something has to give.” Then he said that the battery is the same, processor is better and faster, price is the same, added cameras. But he never said what gave!

      Remember, iPhone 4’s price without contract is $599 for 16GB and $699 for 32GB. That is a much smaller device, but has high quality cameras and hi-res display, but is $70 more expensive than a much larger 3G enabled iPad with the same memory.

    2. rdbvideo.. I think you may fit in well with the special short bus non-average consumer type. Might I recommend you a Xoom? I hear they are quite amazing devices and I’m sure they will astound you. Yes, I’m quite sure of it.

      Otherwise I heard of these things called “cameras”. That’s “caammm uurr ahhhss” if you need to ask for them at your local Best Buy. (Best Buy is an electronic store where you can get a camera.) A camera may fill your need quite nicely! Hope this helps!

      Because I don’t think it’s important, I’ll be happy with 720p video that the iPad 2 will supply me quite nicely.

      1. correctu… Your comments are precisely the kind of short bus, Tourette syndrome, eat-your-own, lunatic tripe that I’ve come to expect from a certain group of Apple bottom feeders. “You dare question Apple?!? You must be a moron! Go back to Microsoft and Android!!” rdbvideo asks a lucid question and should have a reasonable expectation of respect. He certainly does not seem to be trolling for opportunities to plug some iPad knockoff (like you did, albeit with disrespect and sarcasm).

        The cameras (thanks for the phonetic assistance, btw) while perhaps not the highest resolution, provide instant video/still input. Of course, as you helpfully point out, you could also purchase (or use an already bought) better camera, which can be connected via the Camera Connection kit. (Which, btw, I am hoping that Apple expands in functionality as external storage devices for content such as Pages, Keynote, and 3rd party apps for saving to/copying from SD cards and USB drives which are externally powered).

        You correctu are precisely what I thought Mac users were. Thank God that, after I purchased my iPhone 3G, I was exposed to Apple by non-morons, and made the logical decision to move to Macs with a MacBook Pro and then an iMac. Since then, my father, brother and another friend were so impressed that they each switched to MBPs and MBAs.

        I hope that others will see Mac’s advantages, and ignore the fact that some Apple fanboys have no class.

        1. I have no idea what you are talking about DMac.. I was only trying to help this guy out with alternatives to Apple tech. If you can’t see that, might I recommend you a Xoom?

        2. Thanks DMac for your civil input.
          Your reasoning makes sense. I just wish they could use the same camera as in the iPhone. I fear that putting an inferior camera in the iPad could tarnish it’s image (no pun intended).

          And Gosh correctu… I have hurd of dose camurah things. I’ve been a pro-photographer since 1966… have all kinds of top end gear (5D MkII, 60D and more)…
          I just get tired of lugging it around when I’m not on a paid gig. (yes, yes… I know of point & shoot cams… just one more piece of tech in my bulging pockets.) It would just be nice to be able to quality capture an unexpected moment somewhere I’ve only taken my iPad.

          As far as buying a Xoom… I’ve only purchased Apple computer tech since 1981. As a satisfied customer (and stockholder) I have no plans to change that.
          🙂

  5. Gauging from the article, I guess non-average consumers like when their tablets crash often and expect their tablets to shoot 5MP photos. Also it’s not 7″, so it’s a no-go if you want it in your pocket (it’s too big! lol). This gives the Kindle another obvious advantage because it has a smaller screen to squint at books with. Lets not forget that the iPad 2 can’t do flash, once again showing the benefit of how other tablets such as Android have their unique crash capability that the iPad simply DOES NOT HAVE!

    Also, don’t forget that the Xoom will have free 4G capability where you simply return your Xoom back to Motorola and less than a week later you get it back with all-new reduced battery life you can use for the less than 100 apps that are optimized for it.

    In other words, non-average consumers are retarded.

    AVERAGE consumers prefer a sleek tablet with 65,000 apps, on a stable operating system that doesn’t crash, with considerably cheaper price points. They like the iPad 2.

    Now you can see why iPad 2 is destined to lose market share.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.