“A new photo depicts the iPad 3’s shell as being 0.81mm thicker than that of the iPad 2, according to Apple.pro,” Electronista reports.
“In the image, both tablets are being measured using digital calipers,” Electronista reports. “The iPad 2 registers at 8.69mm, while the iPad 3 is a straight 9.5mm. Apple’s official specifications list the iPad 2’s thickness as 8.8mm.”
Electronista reports, “Either way the device should be thinner than the iPad 1, which was 13.4mm and often criticized as too heavy to hold for extended amounts of time.””
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: Whatever. So, our wives and kids will have thinner iPads than us. Somehow, we’ll live. Just tell us when and where to enter our credit card numbers!!!
Awww, crap, Forget it. I’m not gonna buy one o’ them fat pigs. Nope..,
I guess now I’ll be forced to go out and by a Galaxy Playbook Fire Xoom TouchPad v9.0.
I’ve had my eye on it for a while now.
That’s incredibly waay to thick for me. How would I be able to carry it? I’ll settle for a chromebook instead.
“MacDailyNews Take: Whatever. So, our wives and kids will have thinner iPads than us. Somehow, we’ll live. Just tell us when and where to enter our credit card numbers!!!”
Well I never would have guessed that MDN was a boys club. The constant political headline baiting and childish takes certainly never eluded to such a possibility…
alluded
It is just a joke. I am actually the one who generally gets the Apple hand-me-downs in my family. So getting the iPad 3 before my kids will be a new and welcome experience.
As a gay man (that shockingly uses Apple products), I would have preferred “spouse”. But I ‘get’ that straight dudes are speaking for themselves. I’m used to it.
Actually, I don’t even speak for myself…
😆
Hmm… I don’t get the comment. ???
I call B.S. First off, they appear to be comparing a 3G model to a WIFI only and on the iPad3 photo you cannot see the bottom of the calipers to even know if it’s legit. Could be just a made up story for the web hits and nothing more.
I can totally understand and accept the need to make the iPad thicker for various technical reasons. But, I don’t think Steve Jobs would have.
Ready to buy, regardless.
My downstream consumers are excited too.
Don’t laugh at 0.81mm. That’s how much snow we got this winter.
I think it’s because it will include a DVD player
That’s a 32nd of an inch. .032 inch. Hardly noticeable.
You’re right! That’s just under 1.678e-7 leagues…
Still makes no sense. For now, I see no reason why would iPad 3 be thicker: the display is not thicker, and there is more than enough of space in iPad 2 case for larger batteries — for them to be wider (not thicker) in case if more capacity is needed.
It should be obvious to anyone paying attention that the iPad will be as thick as it needs to be, and no thicker. .8mm won’t be discernible. The critical metric is weight, and no info on that yet.
Psst! … remember the dual backlights in order to keep up with the new screen resolution? I’m guessing it’s that. DUAL BACKLIGHTS!
Its room for the Flowmasters.
The iPad 2 is roughly an order of magnitude faster than the original iPad in computing speed. The iPad 2 would have been in the top 300 supercomputers in the world in 1994, and as fast as a washing machine-sized, liquid-cooled 4-processor Cray 2 from 1985. An eight-processor version of the Cray 2 was the fastest computer in 1985. If Apple makes a similar leap in performance from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3 in addition to a massive leap in graphics performance, then you should be shouting praise rather than bellyaching over a fraction of a mm.
A mm is less than —> || It follows that 0.8mm is even less.
If Apple adds incredible new functionality and maintains or even improves battery life, then iPad 3 sales will make the recent holiday quarter for the iPad 2 look like RIM Playbook sales results in comparison.
My money is on the table for the iPad 3. Yours should be, too.
For those of us that have iPad 1’s and are too lazy to do research but will be upgrading to an iPad 3, how much more or less is that?
Per the published and rumored specs, the iPad 3 (at 9.5 mm) is 3.9 mm (about 0.15″) thinner than your original iPad (at 13.4 mm). That is a 29.1% reduction in thickness relative to the original iPad.
It will also likely have around two orders of magnitude better performance both in terms of the CPU and graphics performance. Do yourself a favor and get the iPad 3.
If you need digital calipers to measure the difference, it’s inconsequential.
It’ll still be thinner than a pubic hair from “Ballmer’s left nut”.
At 1 foot from one’s eyes, you’d be hard pressed to be able to tell the difference. Complete non issue (if true).
If there’s a reason to thicken the case, it could be due to the camera, as better images require larger imaging chips, which require a greater distance between the focal plane and the front of the lens, as you can only bend the light so much without introducing other problems like chromatic aberration.
I remember back in 2011 something about DUAL BACKLIGHTS!
“The new Retina display is capable of greater resolution than the current iPad, with more pixels on its screen than some high-definition televisions, the person said. The pixels are small enough to make the images look like printed material, according to the person.”
Do these writers not know that printing is made possible by using little dots (Halftones)? The new screen will be more like ‘Continuous tone’ photos.
Sure, printed images are halftones, but, unless text is printed as a four-colour for design purposes, it’s usually not rendered as a dot structure but a line image; in regular litho print anyway. If it’s a digital print job then everything is just tiny ink dots anyway. Just look at any magazine printed on gloss stock, the text should not be a halftone.
You are correct, but aside from text and line, Jean is also correct. The Retina display is more akin to continuous tone images than is magazine print. Even with my eyes I can pick out the dot pattern in SWOP print. Of course there are some fine art repro printers that mimic continuous tone pretty well.
Most of the time people talk about the clarity of the images/pictures on iPads. That was my point, aside from the lack of knowledge of the tech writers.
Face it, there could be a dozen different technical reasons for such a minor shift. Does the new display require a different chip set? A slightly larger heat sink? Camera optics (as stated above)? Battery configuration? New antenna design?
We’re talking about a size difference that’s virtually insignificant. Wait for March 7. Then wait for the teardown.
psst! … DUAL BACKLIGHTS!
’nuff said
Omg! What a non-Issue that is not news worthy. I did the conversion and .81 mm =.031 inches. That’s 3 100th’s of an inch. Steve would not have had a problem with it. He’s probably laughing in his grave at anyone stressing over it. Lol.