The New York Times continues idiotic vendetta, claims Apple’s new iPad only offers ‘modest changes’ (UPDATED)

“Apple updated the iPad on Wednesday with a high-definition screen, faster wireless connection and several other refinements,” Nick Wingfield reports for The New York Times.

“As recent history has shown, though, even those relatively modest changes could be enough for the company to attract waves of new buyers for its tablet computer,” Wingfield reports. “The company said the new iPad would go on sale on March 16 for a starting price of $499, unchanged from the last generation of iPads. The product will have a screen that provides a comparable level of clarity to the iPhone ‘retina display,’ with higher-resolution than conventional high-definition televisions, according to Apple executives.”

Wingfield reports, “And in a sign that Apple intends to more seriously protect its market share in the tablet market, the company said it would continue to sell its second generation iPad, dropping the price to $399 from $499… The new iPad, the third generation of the device, looks virtually indistinguishable from its predecessor, without any of the bold outward design changes often associated with new products from the company. It features a faster processor — an A5X quad-core chip — and a higher resolution screen — 2,048 by 1,536 pixels, more than 3.1 million pixels, or four times more than the current iPad. It will also operate on the fourth-generation cellphone network technology known as LTE. In the United States, the new iPad will work on AT&T’s and Verizon’s networks.”

Full article – Think Before You Click™here.

MacDailyNews Take: The New York Times seems hellbent on reducing its credibility to a sub-tabloid level.

What’s next, a report claiming that the sky is chartreuse with pink polka dots? Fscking idiots. How out-of-touch do you have to be to think that you can report obvious lies and make people believe it’s the truth?

“Modest changes?” Puleeze. And they wonder why they’re hemorrhaging readers.

UPDATE March 8, 12:45am: Sometime between the publication of our article and this update, The New York Times article text and headline have been revised while neglecting to note that any revisions had been undertaken. Wonder why. 😉

See related article: Why did The New York Times revise their ‘iPad modest changes’ article and neglect to inform their readers? – March 8, 2012

Related articles:
Apple unveils new iPad featuring Retina display, A5X chip, 5-megapixel iSight camera and ultrafast 4G LTE – March 7, 2012
FLA President: Foxconn factories ‘first-class; way, way above average’ – February 15, 2012
Apple CEO Tim Cook calls New York Times supplier report ‘patently false and offensive’

116 Comments

      1. Put in historical context, based on design YES. the upgrades are geeky specs to most. Apple frequently makes radical FORM FACTOR design changes.

        And the name? “The New iPad” while still selling the old iPad2.

        Somebody didn’t think their naming strategy through and has decided to change mid stream. It is going to be confusing to consumers.

        What’s the next one to be called? Now that they are selling two models at different price points, how will that work next time? The NEW NEW iPad? and the old new ipad?

        1. And to be clear, I’m excited about the new specs, but I am a geek. I can see where someone expecting something radically different would refer to it as modest.

          I am critical of the name, Steve would have had an explanation or ensured a differentiator I think. Just a small example of the new leadership thinking differently I guess..

          1. Form factor has little to do with changes. It is superficial. I am not a geek and I am very excited to get the amazing new iPad. If your not impressed with the changes, it has nothing to do with the impressive changes.

            1. I clearly stated that I WAS excited for the new specs, and want one.

              What a bunch of rabid, touchy, hot heads this site has..

              I said I could UNDERSTAND someone THINKING it was a modest upgrade. Apple has set a high bar for themselves, some people expect radical paradigm shifting announcements that they can relate to. (I am not that person)

              Since when is the term “Modest” an insult? Clearly there is more than one poster here who could use some modesty. Get a grip…

            2. NY Slimes is the bottom of the barrel. Pure Democrat propaganda. Apple is huge, successful, American success story = NY Slimes trashing them. Pathetic.

          2. I’m happy they smart enough to name iPad as iPad, not iPad 3 or iPad HD. It’s like MBP, will still be MBP even the new one coming. Or MBA, or iPodTouch. If the new one coming, they will name it as it is. A New iPad.

        2. So that would explain the radical design of the iPhone 4S…oh, wait – it wouldn’t. Shame that thing didn’t sell very well. Maybe they should have consulted you on the design. And the name. Definitely the name too.

          We’re going to send a tech over to your house to install the red phone with the direct line to Tim Cook. Maybe you can help stem the tide of disastrous decision-making that is destroying Apple.

          1. I’m not sure how much more you can adjust the physical design of the iPad … its basically a super thin screen with a border so you can hold it … Any smaller and lighter and it will be paper .. I actually like a little weight to it. And many folks add more weight and structure with a case

        3. And they often don’t [make radical design changes], case in point- the Mac Pro. When you have an awesome design you don’t need to f with it.

          Maybe you should look at it thusly-
          “Wow look at all the new features at no additional cost over the last generation”.

        4. Agree about the form factor being the cause for ‘modest’ summarising, but disagree about the nomenclature. Think about how Apple have named their computers for years (iMac, MacBook, etc) – they’ve not had a ‘2’ or ‘3’ slapped on them.

          What will the next iPad be called? ‘The new iPad’, obviously. Then what will *this*one become next year? ‘iPad (3rd gen)’, obviously.

          1. Actually, this is EXACTLY the point. The ONLY way to distinguish Macs is by their date. This is stupid. If I’m looking to buy a used MBP on ebay I have to do a lot of work to find the one I want. Had they had unique names, it would make my life a LOT easier. But then I guess Apple doesn’t care about the confusion caused when people go to buy used hardware. Oh well…

            1. The should be more than enough? Why should they care buyers of used products? Thats not their job. That should be resellers duty to properly identify the model before selling. Would you prefer some sort of complicated system like digital cameras with all their random number and letters with the model name? You shouldn’t blame Apple because you choose to buy your products 2nd or 3rd hand.

            2. “Oh gee! I don’t remember if the 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo was the one used in the 2010 MBP or the 2011 one! And I don’t know how to use Wikipedia!

              Fuck that, I’ll just buy this Dell XPS 2943G. I’ve had enough of Apple’s confusing names!”

              ^^^^^ That’s how you sound, in all your retardness ^^^^^

        5. You can’t be serious…

          These are “Modest”?
          4x the resolution of the iPad 2 (no one else has anything comparable in a tablet)
          ((If think this if just a geeky thing, just show someone — anyone — an iPhone 3GS & an iPhone 4 and watch their reaction to the difference in resolution. Also just the ability to play 1080p at native resolution is going to wow a LOT of non geeks.))

          2x graphics cores of the iPad 2
          ((If you think this is just a geeky thing, watch the average user deal with some other graphics on some other tablets and see their frustration with the graphics speed [ or rather lack thereof]))

          LTE (> 2x wireless throughput of the iPad 2)
          ((If you think this is just a geeky thing, watch someone traveling down the road trying [as a passenger, of course] to download Google Maps or such in real time. 3G takes a noticeable time. In areas with 4G this will be very, very noticeably faster for anyone.))

          Greater RAM (not Flash RAM)
          ((It you think this is just a geeky thing, then you have no idea how this plays into overall performance. Not everything on an iPad is graphics constrained. Think businesses that use the “Good for Enterprises” application. There is a very noticeable difference in message decryption speed between the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 4S. Business users — not just geeks — should notice a similar improvement going from an iPad 2 to a 2012 iPad.))

          Need I go on?

          There were significant improvements.

          Could there have been more? Yes: 802.11ac; haptic display; front facing camera supporting native resolution and 1080p video; move from USB 2.0 to either USB 3.0 or Thunderbolt; add a top end at 128 GB flashRAM; etc.

          However, that does not take away from the fact that there were significant (not modest) improvements.

          1. Don’t read MDN’s selectively-edited excerpt from the NYT, read the actual Wingfield article in its entirety. He mentioned almost all of the technical improvements. He quoted an analyst that recommends this rockets this iPad ahead of anything else that’s been announced, which includes Windows 8 tablets. He didn’t really have anything bad to say about Apple at all.

            Wingfield, however, did commit the sin that MDN can’t forget: it reported that some people had hoped for more aggressive design changes. Expressing disappointment about any Apple product is verboten on MDN, and MDN reserves the right to attack without mercy if you dare to question its Apple religion.

            In short, MDN just continues to whine about the NYT because it can’t generate its own news and it needs the ad clicks. Quite pathetic, actually.

            1. Sorry, I can’t agree with that at all. MDN rounds up news, it doesn’t generate it. MDN doesn’t need to sensationalize stories, Apple stories are ipso facto sensational. Pundits that try to steal a match on Apple design are fair game for ridicule. And MDN followers, many of whom are longtime persecution victims, have a human right to see their tormentors in the dock and shake their fists in righteous triumph. I don’t regard any of that as whining, pathetic, religious, or pathological in any way. Anyone who pretends that the fairness doctrine applies here, or that enough is enough, doesn’t understand that some of us, having lived through a mercy-free era dominated by Windows shills, apologists, and storm troopers, see nothing but glory in throwing it all back in their faces.

              A small overreaction to a mild story is understandable given the brutal backstory.

        6. The next ipad will be called the 4th generation ipad. They had to stop with the numbers.What were going to have in 5 years ipad7? Just like the ipod they are classified as 1st generation 5th generation ect…

      2. Perhaps not modest but not speaking as a fanboy, I do believe that it was not revolutionary. Good enough for me to have just ordered one (16 GB Wi Fi) but not anything like the first or even second. And I have owned both of them too. I couldn’t live without my iPad. I bought a new 27″ iMac last month and rarely use it. It is great when I do use it but I’m so dependent on the iPad that I almost forget that it’s only inches away on my desk. But it does have a bitchin huge screen that makes my old 22″ monitor seem so tiny. Now I wonder if we will see a 7″ or 8″ iPad?

          1. Agreed, my point was that Apple has had some many “revolutions” in recent years, the press and casual consumers EXPECT (RIght or wrong) that to be the case with every announcement, hence the term “Modest”. But everyone here was up in arms in some visceral rage, hell bent on fighting the “conspiracy”.

            A little perspective folks, in the grand scheme of things not that big a deal. Take your blood pressure medicine already!

    1. Hmmm dryers, like this.

      “Today the newest steamship of the White line managed to contact a smallish ice mass on its way to New York. It suffered some small damage and so will be a little late getting to New York. ”

      2009….Note that some of the china has already arrived. LOL

    2. The truth is not the issue. The characterization of the changes as “modest” is the issue. Even the fact that the form factor didn’t change is spun as a negative, just like the whole iPhone 5 fiasco.

      I for one am glad the shape didn’t change. That means it will still fit in my bag.

    3. it’s not that it’s ‘not true’ but giving everything a negative slant like describing the new stuff as ‘modest’. …

      — 4 times more pixels than iPad 2
      — (according to apple) 4x faster than Tegra 3 in graphics
      — same battery life (so many had stated flatly it’s impossible to increase power so much and maintain battery)
      etc.

      that’s NOT ‘modest’.

      Also statements that’s trying to give things a negative slant like “without any of the bold outward design changes often associated with new products from the company”

      really? always dramatic changes? the iPhone 4S looks pretty much the same as the previous models, the box of the Mac Pro hasn’t been changed in donkey years even with processor etc upgrades, the imac looks the same etc.

      the new iPad is stunning and the NYT guy is trying it’s damnest to spin it as something ‘not enough’ just like all the people saying the original iPad was ‘just a big iPhone’.

    4. Well, for starters, this statement is clearly inaccurate.

      “…2,048 by 1,536 pixels, more than 3.1 million pixels, or four times more than the current iPad.”

      The new iPad has four times *as many* pixels as the current iPad 2. If it had four times *more* pixels then it would have five times *as many* pixels. This is sloppy writing for a newspaper and is, unfortunately all too common in all forms of media.

      Another example: When one team has 40 points and their opponent just scored to reach 38 points, they have not “pulled within two points.”

      1. Let’s see. I believe 4 is 4 times as many as 1, 8 is four times as many as 2 and 3,145,728 is 4 times as many as 786,432.

        You seem to be a little mathematically challenged.

        1. No, he’s right, for what it’s worth.

          Saying “4 times *more*” is additive, while saying “has 4 times as many” is comparative.

          Mathematically, the former implies 4x x, while the latter implies 4x. They are not the same.

          It *is* sloppy writing.

        2. @Do Math Lately?
          You were hoisted by your own petard. KingMel rightly pointed out that the NYT report said “4 times more” when they should’ve said “4 times as many”.

    5. It’s not true because the author is just parroting a CNET article that said the exact same thing. Too much Microsoft money in the water. The sharks are circling. Balmer is trying to create an edge.

    1. Why’s that? Because it didn’t have a fold-out keyboard, a stylus, SD card slot…
      Just like the iP4s, because the OUTWARD APPEARANCE hasn’t changed, idiots think nothing much has changed..

  1. The part where they claim that the changes are modest, I suppose. The changes are far, far from modest. I never imagined they can actually produce a screen with such resolution without a major loss in performance and battery power. That is an incredible feat on its own.

Reader Feedback

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