The reviews are rolling in...
If you buy a new iPhone or iPod Touch every year, then, yes, you should replace your old iPad with the iPad 2.
As expected. He goes on,
Anyone who argues that the iPad 2 falls short because it doesn’t offer enough to get current iPad owners to upgrade is missing the point. Apple’s target is not the 15-20 or so million people who’ve already bought a tablet. They’re looking at the hundreds of millions of people who haven’t yet, but will soon.
Agree 100%. Apple has created a yearly upgrade cycle that both delights the hardcore nerds and prevents the alienation of the casual user.
Joshua Topolsky, at Engadget:
We're early enough in the tablet game that a small push in specs like this will last us another season, but Apple needs to deliver bigger guns by the time we see a "3" at the end of the iPad moniker.
Missed the point completely. What is the “small push in specs” preventing us from doing? How is it hurting the user experience? Half of the review is focused on the specs and drawing parallels to the Xoom, which is like comparing a 750 horsepower diesel engine in a Mac truck to a 500 horsepower engine in a Ferrari; the Ferrari just doesn't measure up, apparently. (No offense ment to Josh, he's a great guy and Engadget is a great site, just don't get the focus on hardware.)
For owners of the previous generation, we don't think Apple's put a fire under you to upgrade. Unless you absolutely need cameras on your tablet, you've still got a solid piece of gear that reaps plenty of the benefits of the latest OS and apps.
Again, missed the point. The upgrade is appropriate for a device that should last more than one year, as Gruber mentions in his review.
MG Siegler, of TechCrunch:
Again, I suspect Apple had multiple motivations for making these two apps. One one hands, they’re great apps that people will get a ton of use out of. One the other, they showcase that yes, the iPad is creating as well as consuming.
I think it’s far more tactical than this. The devices aren’t to spur content creation on the iPad, it’s to show that there is a mature ecosystem available for the platform where none exists on Android, or the as-of-yet vaporware Playbook and WebOS platforms. When a customer picks up the iPad 2 at Best Buy and plays with PhotoBooth and Garage Band, and then pick up a Xoom or Tab (if they can find them, one is usually with the mobile phones, the other lost among the dying netbooks) the difference is night and day. At that point everything else falls away, and all that is left is the experience.
David Pogue, of The New York Times:
But the shocker here, though, is that the iPad 2 actually costs less than its comparably equipped Android rivals, like the Xoom and the Samsung Galaxy Tab.
I know Mr. Pogue understands this, but “Comparably equipped” is irrelevant in the current state of the tablet market. An iPad 2 running iOS 4.3 next to an iPad 2 running Honeycomb would not be “comparably equipped.” One is a device ready for market, building on the immense success of it’s slightly elder brother; the other is a technology demo for Tron fans.
Last, but certianly most least, Walt Mossberg of All Things D:
Also, the battery life, while very good, isn’t as strong as I found it to be on the first iPad.
Well, that's strange... I wonder what the numbers look like.
That’s 2.5 hours better than the Xoom did on the same test, but more than an hour less than I got from the original iPad, which clocked in at 11 hours, 28 minutes.
I'm very surprised that Mossberg went this direction. It should be obvious that his experience with the iPad 1 was extraordinary, and shouldn't be indicative of real world performance given almost every other review saw times around the 10 hour mark.
Ladies and gents, I believe we have a winner (again).