“During the new iPad’s unveiling yesterday, Phil Schiller noted many of the device’s upgrades — the new Retina display, quad-core graphics engine, and LTE networking — consume a lot of battery life,” Jordan Kahn reports for 9to5Mac. “Schiller then announced the new iPad would have the same 10-hour battery life over Wi-Fi (or 9 hours over 4G) as the iPad 2.”
“A few things not included in the presentation: The new battery is a 42.5-watt-hour rechargeable lithium-polymer battery with 70 percent more capacity compared to the iPad 2′s 25-watt-hour battery,” Kahn reports. “The new iPad battery likely will cover almost the entire surface area of the device.”
Kahn reports, “One unanswered question is whether the new iPad’s 70 percent larger battery will take longer to charge.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Dan K.” for the heads up.]
So the new iPad is slightly thicker and heavier compared to iPad 2, probably because of the need for a better battery. But the difference is small enough to be unnoticeable by most people, and since most “The new iPad” customers are new to iPad, they won’t really have a basis for comparison.
I wonder if the battery is the same for those of us who have ordered the WiFi only versions? If so, then we should get slightly longer run time between charges, as we won’t have the power hungry LTE.
I have a MiFi, so I will continue to use that when I do need connectivity and am not near a WiFi hotspot (and will be upgrading it to an LTE model soon).
The LTE is only part of the issue. The smallest part, actually. Doubling the pixels doubled the power draw of the screen, and the screen, by far, was already the biggest power drain on the device.
Doubling the graphics cores of the CPU likely also increased power consumption, though unlike the screen, I can’t know for sure.
Wi-Fi models should get 10 hours, same as the LTE models when the LTE is not active. When the LTE (or 4G, or 3G) is used for connectivity, the battery life drops to 9 hours. Same as the last model. That means that while the 4G chipset does take more juice, the proportion of additional power is roughly the same… 10% more than wifi only.
actually it’s 4X the pixels
4x the pixels, double the resolution 🙂
And umm… yeah. 4x the power draw, plus the extra light bar to push light through that display?
wifi-only ipads still get the same 10 hours that the wifi+4G ipads get. if you turn the 4G on, your battery life drops to 9 hours.
We seriously need new ground breaking battery technology.
What do you want to bet Apple is scouring the globe as we speak looking to hire people with this knowledge and skill?
I’m frankly shocked we haven’t heard of a major acquisition by Apple in this area yet. The iPod came out over 10 years ago and everything they have done since has been related to battery and portability constraints.
Apple have been busy with battery technology and patents for a while now –
http://www.patentlyapple.com/.services/blog/6a0120a5580826970c0120a5580ebf970c/search?filter.q=battery
Jubei, that is why NASA and physicists need our support. The Large Hadron Collider and recently closed Fermilab are extremely close to discovering how energy forms matter (Higgs boson). If this can be controlled (think Star Trek transporter) and using E=mc^2, the currently size iPad batteries could power it for years, probably its whole life. The same would be true with electric car batteries. A dish washer sized energy-matter converter could supply enough power for you and your home for your entire life. Scientists are getting very close.
Ain’t gonna happen as long as oil is the world’s drug of choice.
You’re using too much soap when brainwashing…sigh….
The stone age didn’t end because of a shortage of stones.
Beautifully said.
It also didn’t end due to government intervention.
Maybe I’m wrong here, but I believe the boson is tied to gravity, not matter created by energy, but gravity as a result of this mysterious particle. I presumed the boson was as much a particle of matter more than energy, although I can see it being referred to as “energy” since it may more of an attracting rather than binding material. I have to admit here mathematics is magic to me…
We need Apple to innovate not make longer lasting batteries.
Innovate on all levels.
BEEP-beep-BEEEP!!
*side-to-side wobble*
Pretty much all hardware features on a computer have a power cost. You want a high res screen, you’re going to have to pay for it somehow.
What makes the iPad so amazing is all they were able to cram in there with such long uptime at such a small size given the constraints of battery technology.
You don’t think creating a better battery counts as innovation???
One big battery. Nice.
With Processors shrinking so small – 100s of millions transistors on a single die; why can they not place the entire computer there?
One chip integrating the graphics cards, memory, the processor and embedded system – leaving a battery – storage and connectors only.
…and in the darkness bind them.
Hmm, circuit boards are essentially loops “rings” if you will, they are soldered down to a sheet of plastic that is inside a case that keeps light out… Never thought of it that way.
Maybe they’ll add a thin sheet of solar cells behind the pixel layer next.
The battery on my iPad 1 lasted 2 years, Apple then provided a replacement iPad1 for free. Go Apple.
The battery on mine is still going strong.
This is part of Apple’s genius. The reason they get the battery life they do is due to their battery technology, integrated custom A5X chip, and their software. I don’t see any other electronics manufacturer being able to come close to building a tablet with a simar form factor
Sorry… accidentally hit the publish button while typing.
This is part of Apple’s genius. The reason they get the battery life they do is due to their battery technology, integrated custom A5X chip, and their software. I don’t see any other electronics manufacturer being able to come close to building a tablet with a similar resolution, 4G, and form factor with the battery life of the new iPad.
I’m willing to bet Apple has the supply on the iPad screens locked up for the next 12-18 months. Even if someone else wanted to make a similar tablet they won’t be able to.
I expect Apple to soon be large enough to completely buy up numerous components and shut the doors on various product categories for competitors.
What I find funny, is on one of the iPad 3 vs Asus Transformer Prime articles, people are already posting that the iPad screen is “overkill, no one really needs that and big deal”.
That the iPad is still only at 10 hours of battery life when the Asus is 12 hours.
They won’t admit that 4 times more pixels “might” be part of the power issue.
The Droid fans prove once again that they will bitch about anything.
My understanding is that the USB 2.0 spec is 5V at 500mA maximum. Power adapters can provide up to 1.5A (limit of USB 2.0 A-connector), which is why wall adapters charge your iOS devices two to three times faster than a laptop port.
The laws of physics have not changed. Given the same charger (voltage/current specs), a new iPad with 70% greater battery capacity than an iPad 2 should take 70% longer to charge. Any EEs out there with more insight?
Two thoughts:
A battery is made up of discrete cells, and they don’t need to charge serially. Not sure about the details with the new iPad battery, but I wouldn’t assume 70% longer charge times are a given – it might be but doesn’t necessarily have to be.
The flip side of the power problem is the heat problem. When power is converted to energy it gives off heat. More power = more heat. Figuring our how to dissapitate the heat is no small engineering challenge in a compact device. There is only so much power a device this size can require before heat management becomes the limiting design factor.
I think Apple has done an incredible job balancing energy efficient components with battery technology and device form factor/weight.
-john
Another thought?
Since the physical size of the screen is the same, just more pixels crammed in per inch. I would assume the physical size of each pixel is then smaller, hypothetically 1/4 the size than iPad 2 version.
What is the individual pixel power draw?
Is it half or 1/4 of the previous screen pixel that was bigger?
I’m not an EE that specializes in this particular tech so I don’t know if the power draw for pixels changes much with size of not.
What I’m getting at is if each pixel is now using 1/4 the power but there are 4 times as many, then the power draw for just the pixels is roughly the same.
But if shrinking an already small pixel can’t or does not change the power draw, then yep, 4 times the power needed now.
It’s big and heavy. I rather get a laptop….
… buy a Dell to go with your small, airy fairy-brain.
Um, it’s lighter than a MacBook Air (and the original iPad). What laptop could you possibly be comparing it to?