Apple Quietly Updates iPad 2's Processor

brace yourselfs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:09 · Score: 2, Funny

mini ipads are coming

Re:brace yourselfs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:14 · Score: 3, Funny

yes.. maxi ipads were too cumbersome.
Re:brace yourselfs by K.+S.+Kyosuke · 2012-05-04 11:39 · Score: 4, Funny

mini ipads are coming
I've calculated the size...57 % of A5, that makes for 158 x 112 mm (6,2 x 4,4 in). Mini indeed! But I don't know what ISO will say to Apple's attempt at redefining the ISO 216 sizes. I will have to write with smaller letters from now on.

--
Ezekiel 23:20
Re:brace yourselfs by unixisc · 2012-05-04 18:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Already there - it's called the iPod Touch
Re:brace yourselfs by FrootLoops · 2012-05-04 20:56 · Score: 1

They're called miniPads.
Re:brace yourselfs by MobileTatsu-NJG · 2012-05-05 04:55 · Score: 1

I personally think this oft-rumored mini-iPad is just a remote control for the upcoming Apple TV.

--

"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)

Or by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:11 · Score: 1

These ones are cheaper to make, and may allow them to save money on a smaller battery.

Re:Or by spire3661 · 2012-05-04 11:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

I doubt it. Apple is all about user performance (for the envelope they target). You would probably see more real world dollars by keeping the stock battery and touting the 15-30% increase in battery life instead. 12 hour tablet? yes please!

--
Good-bye
Re:Or by CharlyFoxtrot · 2012-05-04 11:30 · Score: 5, Informative

No mystery; From the article :
"the learnings (sic) Apple gains from building the 32nm A5 will pay off later this year as Apple ramps up production of a 32nm SoC for use in the next iPhone."
They're further developing their A5 and ramping up production by introducing it first in an existing product. Smart.

--
If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error.
Re:Or by MBCook · 2012-05-04 11:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Plus, since this chip is smaller, they can get more on a wafer. As long as the yields are good, they're already saving money on each chip.
If they changed the battery, I'd imagine that would require case changes as well as designing and ordering new batteries. All the tooling is already done for the current size battery, why change it?
People who buy the iPad 2 now just have a chance at getting better-than-advertised battery life.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:47 · Score: 1

Except they did it silently in the older model. What advantage do they get from a battery that secretly lasts longer in the budget model?
Re:Or by Gadget_Guy · 2012-05-04 13:13 · Score: 1, Insightful

They're further developing their A5 and ramping up production by introducing it first in an existing product.
Exactly. My first thought was that they will replace the CPU in all of their product line, and the iPad 2 was the first one that had run out of stock and thus required a new batch to be made. So rather than any tactical move to introduce it in the iPad 2 first, it was just the luck of the draw; the first cab off the rank.
It would make a more efficient production line if they didn't have to support 2 different die sizes of CPU. It is probably why they did this change quietly so that people didn't stop buying the existing stocks of the other models of iPad and iPhone while waiting for the new "version".
Re:Or by jo_ham · 2012-05-04 13:46 · Score: 1

I think it was definitely a tactical move. A die shrink is not a trivial process, and there are always going to be hurdles and low-volume issues and so on as you work on it, so Apple opted to test and refine the process using the iPad 2. When the process is mature and all the bugs and yield issues are sorted then they may move it to the iPad 3 line. For now, it would be unwise of them to jump right into a 32nm CPU for a product that they just launched selling as fast as they can make them (especially since there are some issues with "pink" tinted displays - there are those hiccups when a cutting edge component is ramped up to full production scale).
The iPad 2 makes a perfect scale-up testbed - it's last year's model and so is in much lower demand, but will still sell well enough for Apple to get good data on the new process since it's been discounted in price.
Re:Or by chuckugly · 2012-05-04 16:47 · Score: 0

My XOOM has been a 12 hour tablet for a long time.
Re:Or by unixisc · 2012-05-04 18:13 · Score: 2

A 57% die shrink is something any company would be happy to have - their costs go down as well. Also, as the main submission said, the power requirements are greatly reduced, which in Apple's case would be just as big a reason to upgrade - the 15-30% is nothing to scoff at.
Typically, if a company makes that sort of change, they also bundle in other changes - in this case, Apple could use a RAM that's die shrunk, as well as other newer or cheaper components.
Re:Or by unixisc · 2012-05-04 18:27 · Score: 1

Isn't the iPad3 based on the A6? I doubt that they're prepping the shrunk A5 for another platform - maybe they're targeting the iPhone and iPod Touch as well?
Die shrinks are more often than not cost reductions, although sometimes, they may be necessary for either improvements in power consumption or performance. I think this die shrink may have been used before in something else before the current A5 was quietly replaced. I doubt that Apple would introduce it in one of its flagship products w/o testing it out for bugs.
One thing Apple might do - introduce new Airbooks and other Macs based on the A5 and A6. I'd believe that porting OS-X to the A5 would be trivial, given that it's now more BSD based and more portable than NEXTSTEP used to be. Or if the Macs require a 64-bit CPU, they could even re-look @ the PPC again.
Re:Or by beelsebob · 2012-05-04 18:33 · Score: 3, Insightful

You mean your XOOM has lied about its battery life for longer? Don't get me wrong, but my "10 hour" iPad made it across the atlantic and back, with 3 days in between, reading all the way on both flights (11 hours each), and doing some other stuff with it in between. That's because the "10 hours" is 10 hours of browsing, with a reasonably bright screen brightness, with WiFi on. Put it in flight mode, and turn the brightness down to read in the dark and it lasts for ages. By comparison, I've yet to see another tablet (the XOOM included), which by "12 hour battery" doesn't mean "we once managed to sneak out 11:31 by turning the backlight off, wifi off, and leaving it idle".
Re:Or by chuckugly · 2012-05-04 19:15 · Score: 1

I can watch over 8 hours of video, or use it for about 12-14 hours, without recharging or putting it to sleep.
Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 19:54 · Score: 1

It's not about the battery life so much as the advantage of having fewer CPU models in production simultaneously. Apple really likes to use the latest hardware they can, wherever possible.
Re:Or by Shmoe · 2012-05-04 22:46 · Score: 1

The iPad 3 has an A5 with a quad core gpu called the A5X.
Re:Or by VortexCortex · 2012-05-04 23:04 · Score: 1

No mystery; From the article :
"the learnings (sic) Apple gains from building the 32nm
I saw the (sic) and thought they had mispelled "lemmings". Need more coffee.
Re:Or by tgibbs · 2012-05-05 01:44 · Score: 1

As reported in TFA, the iPad2 is extraordinarily power-efficient when watching video, using less power than merely idling on the home screen. Anandtech timed it at 13.3h continuous video play. And that is the original model; the die-shrunk version goes 15.7 hours.
Re:Or by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 10:42 · Score: 0

Awesome, one can fully watch Firefly on a single charge.

Well, I just checked... by Razgorov+Prikazka · 2012-05-04 11:15 · Score: 4, Funny

And they didn't change mine... Not even quietly.
Maybe if the leave the old big one behind, I can put it under my pillow tonight. Then, when the processor-ferry comes around, I will end up with some shiny coins as well!

--
rm -rf --no-preserve-root / ...and let /dev/null sort them out...

Re:Well, I just checked... by jones_supa · 2012-05-04 11:30 · Score: 5, Funny

Only if you remember to brush your teeth with thermal paste.
Re:Well, I just checked... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:49 · Score: 3, Funny

One processor ferry came and took all the processors from Hatteras to Ocracoke. Another one sank off the coast of the Philippines and all processors on board were lost.
OTOH, the processor fairy that visited me last gave me a 486 for my 386sx. That was a long time ago.
Re:Well, I just checked... by rykin · 2012-05-04 11:54 · Score: 0

Don't confuse this with the 4G update. This requires new hardware!
Re:Well, I just checked... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 17:40 · Score: 0

When the processor *ferry* comes a(g)round, it's gonna be one heck of a wreck in your bedroom!
Re:Well, I just checked... by cerberusss · 2012-05-04 23:07 · Score: 2

OTOH, the processor fairy that visited me last gave me a 486 for my 386sx. That was a long time ago.

A long long time ago
I can still remember
How Apple used to make me smile
Bye bye big iPad CPU die
The new iPad is so quick
it's almost making me cry
Et cetera.

--
8 of 13 people found this answer helpful. Did you?
Re:Well, I just checked... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 23:07 · Score: 0

That was a nice upgrade; the 486 was the first of the Intel x86 processors to have onboard cache and led the way to higher performance in PCs by decoupling the processor speed from RAM.

30%? by artor3 · 2012-05-04 11:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

I find it very difficult to believe that a die shrink would improve battery life by that much. Given the amount of energy used by the screen and the radios, you could probably remove the CPU entirely and not see a 30% power reduction.

Either they fixed some other issues, or else the power savings are being exaggerated. Did the old processor have an extremely high sleep current, perhaps?

Re:30%? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:30 · Score: 5, Informative

I find it very difficult to believe that a die shrink would improve battery life by that much. Given the amount of energy used by the screen and the radios, you could probably remove the CPU entirely and not see a 30% power reduction.
Either they fixed some other issues, or else the power savings are being exaggerated. Did the old processor have an extremely high sleep current, perhaps?
Read the article. Its not just a die shrink, but also a change in manufacturing (high-k + metal gate).
Re:30%? by MBCook · 2012-05-04 11:44 · Score: 4, Informative

The other reply to you pointed out that they changed the process a bit too.
But if you look at the benchmarks that were done, the biggest difference was running Infinity Blade II, which means heavy CPU and GPU usage. In that case, the CPU/CPU probably take up a sizable chunk of the system's power.
If you did a "sit on the home screen until the iPad shuts it's self off" test, I'd imagine you'd be right and the battery life wouldn't be that different.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:30%? by beelsebob · 2012-05-04 18:36 · Score: 1

What makes that hard to believe? Intel just cited pretty much the same numbers for their die shrink (95W became 77W - a 20% *peak* power reduction).
Re:30%? by sociocapitalist · 2012-05-05 07:42 · Score: 1

I find it very difficult to believe that a die shrink would improve battery life by that much. Given the amount of energy used by the screen and the radios, you could probably remove the CPU entirely and not see a 30% power reduction.
Either they fixed some other issues, or else the power savings are being exaggerated. Did the old processor have an extremely high sleep current, perhaps?
I'm fairly sure that if you remove the CPU entirely you'll see close to 100% power reduction...

--
blindly antisocialist = antisocial

iPad 2.5 by ajcoon · 2012-05-04 11:21 · Score: 1, Interesting

The "quiet" nature of this change is likely to avoid attracting lawsuits from early adopters of iPad 2.0 that bought a (now) inferior product for more money.

Re:iPad 2.5 by noh8rz3 · 2012-05-04 11:24 · Score: 1

that's not an issue. this is really more like an ipad2.1 - incremental upgrade. that sort of thing happens in tech.
Re:iPad 2.5 by whisper_jeff · 2012-05-04 11:26 · Score: 1

Early adopters? Of an iPad that has been on the market for almost a year and a half? Uh, yeah. Ok.
Re:iPad 2.5 by Jimbookis · 2012-05-04 11:33 · Score: 1

Oh great why didn't they just do this with the iPad3 I *just* bought. It sure could do with a die shrink. Doing it on iPad2 seems arse about.
Re:iPad 2.5 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:37 · Score: 1

You need more for a lawusit than "waaaaaaaaaaah. I don't like it!!"
Re:iPad 2.5 by Lunix+Nutcase · 2012-05-04 11:38 · Score: 1

Because this was for testing purposes? They aren't going to try a newly ramped-up process on what is a flagship product that has higher manufacturing costs and possibly risk lots of returns. They'll do it on the lower priced version that would be less costly if errors did pop up.
Re:iPad 2.5 by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2012-05-04 12:14 · Score: 1

that's not an issue. this is really more like an ipad2.1 - incremental upgrade. that sort of thing happens in tech.
What you say is true, but Apple does it far less than some other companies (and I say that as an Apple user). You don't see their laptop processor speeds climb slowly every couple of months, for example - unlike, say, Dell.
Funny thing is, a lot of Apple fans thought the transition to Intel chips would bring about exactly that sort of change; but it did not happen.

--
#DeleteChrome
Re:iPad 2.5 by zippthorne · 2012-05-04 12:33 · Score: 4, Insightful

More like feared...
The smaller number of different models increases the liquidity of the used market, which is good for stabilizing prices, and also has an effect on depreciation. You can actually sell almost any 24 month old apple laptop for half what you paid for it. Can you do that with a dell? Or is your upgrade plan, "buy a new one and send us the old one and we won't charge you too much to recycle it."

--
Can you be Even More Awesome?!
Re:iPad 2.5 by DigitAl56K · 2012-05-04 12:58 · Score: 1

Why? Didn't those people get what was advertised to them at the time?
Re:iPad 2.5 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 13:09 · Score: 0

Just like all of the early iPhone 4 buyers got a messed up antenna like they were promised. Why would I want an iPad 2 with a CPU that drains my battery faster than iPad 2s being sold now?
Re:iPad 2.5 by lightknight · 2012-05-04 14:11 · Score: 4, Funny

Yes, but let's be honest. That Dell probably wasn't anything special to begin with.

--
I am John Hurt.
Re:iPad 2.5 by thegarbz · 2012-05-04 17:43 · Score: 2

The sad part is neither is the Macbook. It's a bloody computer and an obsolete one at that.
Pay 50% of the original value for something that likely has a completely dead battery which is not user replaceable? No Thanks. At least with an old Dell I can just slap in a new battery and it's otherwise still as good as it was when it came out.
Re:iPad 2.5 by rsborg · 2012-05-04 18:19 · Score: 2

More like feared...
The smaller number of different models increases the liquidity of the used market, which is good for stabilizing prices, and also has an effect on depreciation. You can actually sell almost any 24 month old apple laptop for half what you paid for it.
Actually, a 2008 unibody macbook 13" (current models have "pro" moniker) still sells for ~$500-$750 on ebay [1]. I have one I bought new at the time for $1300... that's about 40 month old machine, and with OSX lion upgrades, modern SSD and memory upgrade it's as usable as a new one.
[1] http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_nkw=macbook+13+unibody+2008&_sacat=0&_odkw=macbook+13+unibody+-pro

--
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
Re:iPad 2.5 by unixisc · 2012-05-04 18:30 · Score: 2

Probably b'cos iPad3 is already used w/ the newest A6 that there is. I'm guessing that the A6 is on the same technology node as the new A5.
I doubt that they'd be using a brand new, untested chip on any high profile product. They might have used it in something else - say an AirPort - before putting it here.
Re:iPad 2.5 by unixisc · 2012-05-04 18:32 · Score: 1

Just the opposite - from the above story
Re:iPad 2.5 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 19:58 · Score: 0

The iPad 2 meets the advertised specifications. This isn't changed if a revision improves it.
Re:iPad 2.5 by Richard_at_work · 2012-05-04 21:55 · Score: 1

Because the iPad you have isn't faulty, and this upgrade isn't a fix for anything, it's an improvement.
You are not entitled to anything more than you bought.
Re:iPad 2.5 by gnasher719 · 2012-05-04 23:40 · Score: 1

The "quiet" nature of this change is likely to avoid attracting lawsuits from early adopters of iPad 2.0 that bought a (now) inferior product for more money.
That kind of lawsuit would have no merit whatsoever. However, a very good reason is that there is plenty of stock out there with the older processor. So since Apple doesn't tell anyone about the newer processor, you get either exactly what you paid for, or you get something better. You can't complain then. Same as people buying refurbished Macs sometimes get a bigger hard drive or more RAM than they paid for.
Re:iPad 2.5 by gnasher719 · 2012-05-04 23:46 · Score: 3, Funny

Pay 50% of the original value for something that likely has a completely dead battery which is not user replaceable? No Thanks. At least with an old Dell I can just slap in a new battery and it's otherwise still as good as it was when it came out.
Apple went from a user replacable battery that lives through 300 charges to a non-user replacable battery that lives through 1000 charges and has a much better charge in the first place. After two years, my MacBook Pro battery is almost new.

Apart from that, if you can't replace a non-user replacable battery in a MacBook Pro yourself, what business do you have posting on Slashdot?
Re:iPad 2.5 by gnasher719 · 2012-05-04 23:51 · Score: 1

Because this was for testing purposes? They aren't going to try a newly ramped-up process on what is a flagship product that has higher manufacturing costs and possibly risk lots of returns. They'll do it on the lower priced version that would be less costly if errors did pop up.
When this story came out first, it was reported that Apple moved the iPad 2 from a single core chip to a chip that is actual dual core with die shrink, but only one core used. That's what you would do if you want to "practice" the new process - the process might not be quite good enough yet to give enough yield for dual core chips, but enough for single core, and if they can't get enough they can still use the old chip (which is another good reason not to advertise the new chip).

Once the process is good enough, iPad 3+ or iPhone 5 will get the same chip but with two cores actually working, and iPad 2 will get the leftovers where one core doesn't work.
Re:iPad 2.5 by swalve · 2012-05-05 00:20 · Score: 1

I'm not sure about the prices two years later, but four years later, my Dell is still going for a quarter of what I paid for it.

And half of a lot of money is still a lot of money. You could have just spent the half in the first place on a decent Dell that's spec'ed better. (If you ignore Velben-good, fake features like the wrought from a block of pure virgin aluminum, and polished by the tears of a unicorn.)

All that said, you are right, the tight control over the models does help the secondary market.
Re:iPad 2.5 by 0100010001010011 · 2012-05-05 00:42 · Score: 1

Because that runs the A5X?
Re:iPad 2.5 by tgibbs · 2012-05-05 02:03 · Score: 1

People sue for all kinds of stupid things. But a lawsuit based upon the fact that some units only do as well as advertised, while others do a bit better, would be unlikely to get far.
Re:iPad 2.5 by Relayman · 2012-05-05 11:24 · Score: 1

Apart from that, if you can't replace a non-user replacable battery in a MacBook Pro yourself, what business do you have posting on Slashdot?
Exactly.

--
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Re:iPad 2.5 by Relayman · 2012-05-05 11:27 · Score: 1

Probably b'cos the new iPad is already used w/ the newest A5X that there is. There, fixed that for you.

--
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Re:iPad 2.5 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-07 09:14 · Score: 0

^ Exactly.
I just sold my 13" unibody, 2.0ghz, upgraded to 500gb 7200rpm hd and 8gb RAM for $740. I bought it for $500 with a cracked screen when it was one month old, repaired the screen for $300. 500gb HD was a black friday $50 special long before the flood. 8gb RAM was ~$36. I spent, total, ~$886 on this machine, used it for over 3 years, and then sold it for $740. Paid ~$146 for over 3 years of use. Try and get that out of a PC laptop.

At last! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 11:27 · Score: 0

More power for all my fart Apps!

Re:At last! by gstrickler · 2012-05-04 11:52 · Score: 1

No, less power, for a longer "run" time.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

Just the WiFi version by Henriok · 2012-05-04 11:29 · Score: 5, Informative

This only applies to the WiFi version, called iPad2,4. The CDMA and 3G versions are still using the older 45 nm version of the A5 processor.

--

- Henrik

- when the Shadows descend -

Re:Just the WiFi version by cnettel · 2012-05-04 11:48 · Score: 1

And not all Wifi iPad2s, either. At least not among those currently in the channel, just so you don't go buying one for the sole purpose of getting the improved battery life.
Re:Just the WiFi version by gstrickler · 2012-05-04 11:48 · Score: 0

They don't sell 3G and CMDA versions of the iPad 2 anymore. If you want those, you have to buy used/refurb, or get a "New iPad" (aka iPad 3)

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Just the WiFi version by ChunderDownunder · 2012-05-04 11:51 · Score: 1

Perhaps the SoC has removed certain 'unnecessary' circuitry.
Re:Just the WiFi version by gstrickler · 2012-05-04 11:55 · Score: 1

Sorry, I was wrong. I thought they discontinued those, but apparently not yet.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
Re:Just the WiFi version by gstrickler · 2012-05-04 15:15 · Score: 2

And just like most self-righteous jerks, you have a problem with reading comprehension. Check again, I never said the discontinued the iPad 2. I know they never discontinued the Wi-Fi version, but I thought they had discontinued the 3G versions. I was wrong, caught my own mistake, and posted a correction.
And you have no clue who I am, or what I know. And you come back with that BS. Stick your attitude.

--
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false

30% reduction while gaming by MtHuurne · 2012-05-04 11:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Page 4 of TFA states that the 30% was measured while gaming. Games typically put a high load on both the CPU and GPU; these are scenarios where the total power usage is high and therefore the screen and radios make up a smaller fraction of the power footprint.

Re:30% reduction while gaming by artor3 · 2012-05-04 13:10 · Score: 4, Funny

You not only read the article, but made it all the way to page four? I salute you, sir.
Re:30% reduction while gaming by iinlane · 2012-05-04 17:24 · Score: 2

They also used screen brightness of 200nits, way below max.

It might actually make sense. by ChunderDownunder · 2012-05-04 11:45 · Score: 2

The premium 9.7" 'new' iPad comes with the 2048Ã--1536 px display.

Apple could shrink down the iPad 2 to, say, 7" at 1024Ã--768 px.

Re:It might actually make sense. by slazzy · 2012-05-04 13:18 · Score: 2

I love my kindle fire, I often put it in my cargo pockets and take it around with me. I'd much prefer to have an iPad for the app support and they always seem to have a better touch interface on the iOS devices. I hope to see a 7" iPad soon!

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Re:It might actually make sense. by crutchy · 2012-05-04 15:08 · Score: 1

do they supply an iMagnifyingGlass with it?
Re:It might actually make sense. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-06 11:39 · Score: 0

I love my kindle fire, I often put it in my cargo pockets
Wow, you're a faggot.

Splitting product lines? by gman003 · 2012-05-04 11:57 · Score: 2, Interesting

If they're continuing to update the "old" iPad well after the "new" iPad came out, it seems logical to conclude that they intend to maintain two lines of iPads.

I can see some logic to this - the iPad 2 is becoming their "low-end" tablet, and the iPad 3 is becoming their "high-end" tablet. You'll note that the 32GB and 64GB iPad 2s were discontinued, but the 16GB (aka cheapest) models are still made. Most likely they'll keep trying to chip down the price of the iPad 2 to make it more competitive with the cheaper Android tablets, while producing higher-spec (and higher-price) iPad 3 models.

There's probably going to be some brand-shuffling going on. Most likely they'll rename them to "iPad" and "iPad Pro", mirroring their old MacBook / MacBook Pro branding.

Re:Splitting product lines? by MBCook · 2012-05-04 12:26 · Score: 4, Interesting

They're not. That would be confusing for customers, and Apple has always loved simplicity.
This is the way of the electronics world. This kind of thing is always going on, it's just Apple is watched so closely, that when a an internal model number changes it becomes news and someone benchmarked it.
There were at least 2 or 3 PSPs before the Slim. The XBox 360 had 3 or 4 models before the slim. There were also multiple versions of the PS3 and PS2 before their redesigns. Other than often coinciding with the game bundles changing or a price drop, the manufacturers don't tend to make a big deal of this.
As time goes on, it becomes cheaper and easier to manufacture on a smaller process. This allows combining chips, cutting back on heat control, etc; all making the units cheaper to produce. This always reduces power draw, the difference is since this is a piece of portable electronics (and they didn't reduce the battery size), the battery life increased.

--
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Re:Splitting product lines? by gman003 · 2012-05-04 14:40 · Score: 2

You bring up some valid facts, but you fail to make any valid conclusions:
1) They *already* released the "successor" product. This would be like Sony releasing the PS4, then a few months later releasing a new model of the PS3. If you treat the products as strict successors, it makes no sense - why continue not just to manufacture obsolete hardware, but continue engineering work on it?
2) "Two models" is simple enough to not confuse even Apple users, and in fact aligns much better with Apple's other product lines - you have two laptops (the MacBook and MacBook Air), three desktops (the Mac Mini, the iMac, and the Mac Pro), three "current" iPhones (the 3, 4, and 4S are currently produced), and four iPods (Shuffle, Nano, Classic, Touch (although you could argue that the Touch is just a non-cellular iPhone)).
It's not confusing to customers to have a "cheap" and a "professional" set of products, each with a few permutations of simple options (3G or Wifi-only? 16GB, 32GB or 64GB?). Compare the number of tablets made by other vendors - Amazon has three Kindle models. Asus has so many tablets I can't even find an exact count.
3) It does indeed become cheaper to manufacture via continual die-shrinks. You get less die space, lower power usage, and less heat. But again, it only makes sense to improve a product if you intend to continue selling it.
Re:Splitting product lines? by whisper_jeff · 2012-05-04 14:55 · Score: 0

There's probably going to be some brand-shuffling going on. Most likely they'll rename them to "iPad" and "iPad Pro"...
It amazes me how geeks can completely misunderstand how the most successful tech company in the world operates. I find it even more baffling when most of the comments in the thread clearly explain what is going on.
Re:Splitting product lines? by reub2000 · 2012-05-04 15:11 · Score: 1

Well this is not a new model. This is just a die shrinkage. Maybe Samsung wanted to shut down it's 45nm fab to make way for an even more advanced fab?
But yes, this is in line with what apple has done with the iPhone. The previous model is sold as the bargain model. I wouldn't call it a different line. After the 4th generation iPod comes out, the 3rd generation iPad will take it's place as the value tablet.
Re:Splitting product lines? by catmistake · 2012-05-04 21:19 · Score: 1

This would be like Sony releasing the PS4, then a few months later releasing a new model of the PS3. If you treat the products as strict successors, it makes no sense - why continue not just to manufacture obsolete hardware, but continue engineering work on it?
Your point is not lost, but Sony did exactly that with new PS2 models with significant engineering advancements just prior to and long after the November 2006 release of the PS3 :

In 2006, Sony released new hardware revisions (V15, model numbers SCPH-77001a and SCPH-77001b). It was first released in Japan on September 15, 2006, including the Silver edition. After its release in Japan, it was then released in North America, Europe and other parts of the world. The new revision uses [...]
In July 2007, Sony started shipping a revision of the slimline PlayStation 2 (SCPH-79000) featuring a reduced weight of 600 grams compared to 900 grams of the SCPH-77001 (with Expansion Bay), achieved through a reduction in parts. The unit also uses a smaller motherboard as well as a custom ASIC which houses the Emotion Engine, Graphics Synthesizer, and the RDRAM. The AC adaptor's weight was also reduced to 250 grams from the 350 grams in the previous revision.
Another refinement of the slimline PlayStation 2 (SCPH-90000) was released in Japan on November 22, 2007, As well some cosmetic changes, the design of the hardware has been overhauled, incorporating the power supply into the console itself; this also reduces the total weight to 720 grams (25 oz). SCPH-90000 series consoles manufactured after the third quarter of 2008 (indicated by date code 8C) incorporate a revised BIOS, which disables an exploit present in all older models that allowed homebrew applications to be launched from a memory card.
(Wikipedia)
Also... and just IMHO, the things Sony does almost never seem to make any great sense... perhaps Sony is not the best example of what companies do or should do.

--
The Admin and the Engineer
Re:Splitting product lines? by nedlohs · 2012-05-05 06:01 · Score: 2

This would be like Sony releasing the PS4, then a few months later releasing a new model of the PS3
You mean like when the PS3 was launched in November 2006. And then Sony put out a new model of the PS2 in July 2007?
Re:Splitting product lines? by gman003 · 2012-05-05 06:31 · Score: 1

Yes - at a time when the PS3 was literally being outsold by every other console on the market, including its predecessor. The Wii was outselling it four-to-one, and the 360 was peaking at three-to-one. Even the preceding PS2 was often outselling it *before* the new model.
Remember, back in '07, the PS3 showed every sign of dying, while even to this day the PS2 is the best-selling console of all time. Many were speculating that Sony would (or at the very least should) discontinue the PS3, cutting their losses, and instead rely on PS2 sales while readying a new next-gen console. It would have been a logical move, at least in the short-term.
Somehow, I doubt that's what's happening here. The iPad 3 is selling quite well - there's no fear that it will fail. The iPad 2 would do well as a low-end variant, as they're effectively cross-compatible.
Re:Splitting product lines? by tlhIngan · 2012-05-07 03:09 · Score: 1

If they're continuing to update the "old" iPad well after the "new" iPad came out, it seems logical to conclude that they intend to maintain two lines of iPads.
Not likely.
Apple's probably using hte iPad 2 as a production test platform. One that is relatively unimportant other than price point. The test here is a new fabrication process - things can go horrendously wrong still (poor yields, dies after 2 months, etc). Given the new iPad probably outsells the iPad 2 by a significant margin (I'd be surprised if the iPad 2 outsold Android tablets), it's the perfect way to test things. First there's a guaranteed fallback (so if it dies after 2 months, or poor yields mean you only get 10% of the number you expect, production can still continue). Next, it moves slow enough that even if there is a shortage, it would be brief and probably unnoticed - enough to switch production back to the old model.
It's just like when Apple did the Liquidmetal tests using the SIM ejection tool - it's something they can rapidly use another process for (e.g., steel), so they can test out new production methods without adversely affecting production.
When you're cranking stuff out by the millions, it takes a lot of careful analysis to minimize waste and production errors - they cost money. So low-volume, low-demand products make the perfect test platform to iron out production kinks.

Tick Tock by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 12:10 · Score: 0

Did Intel buy Apple, or are they just copying the strategy of the most successful desktop processor manufacturer?

running out of magic by LodCrappo · 2012-05-04 12:19 · Score: 4, Funny

obviously, since jobs death they are working with a limited supply of magic. until an entire new generation of unicorns can be grown and harvested, there simply isn't enough to fill the old full sized CPUs.

--
-Lod

Samsung processor by sl4shd0rk · 2012-05-04 13:35 · Score: 1

The irony is, it's the same processor running the galaxy s III. http://www.phonearena.com/news/Processor-on-next-Apple-iPhone-to-be-produced-via-Samsungs-32nm-process_id29024

--
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!

Re:Samsung processor by allanw · 2012-05-04 13:42 · Score: 4, Informative

Same process, not same processor. And besides, Samsung's foundry is completely separate from their mobile business.

This is the third Apple related article today by NemoinSpace · 2012-05-04 13:41 · Score: 0

Isn't it time for another Creationist vs. Science debate?
My mac mini died years ago. Thank God.

Re:Cooling by jo_ham · 2012-05-04 13:51 · Score: 4, Insightful

Apple just had a cooling issue with one of their products, and now they are shrinking the surface area of a product?

A die shrink reduces thermal output, lowers voltages, increases battery life.

Surely we went over all this with Ivy Bridge?

App support on Kindle Fire by tepples · 2012-05-04 14:19 · Score: 0

I love my kindle fire [...] I'd much prefer to have an iPad for the app support

Kindle Fire runs Android 2 and can install applications from unknown sources. And if you need applications that are exclusive to Google Play Store, there's a package for that too.

bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 14:27 · Score: 4, Interesting

bonch is a professional 'social marketing influencer' who is paid to post stories which promote Apple and slander their competitors.

Here are some of the shill's most recent submissions:

Apple Quietly Updates iPad 2's Processor
Google Faces FTC Fine For Safari Privacy Breach
NY Times: EU May Reopen Google Street View Inquiry
Google Supervisors Knew About Wi-Fi Data Harvesting
FTC Escalates Antitrust Investigation Against Google
Nintendo Hurt By New Rivals
Nintendo Reports First Ever Operating Loss
GPL Use Declining Faster Than Ever
iPhone Tops Sales Charts Of U.S. Carriers
iPad 3 Confirmed To Have 2048x1536 Screen Resolution
Apple Clarifies iBooks Author Licensing
Google Begins Country-Specific Blog Censorship
Why Android Isn't Gaining On Apple In The Enterpri
Android Malware May Have Infected 5 Million Users
Apple Beats Android In U.S. Marketshare
Apple Reports Record-Breaking Quarter Results

In the words of a paid commenter, Apple is breaking records and 'clarifying' its self to Authors, whilst including incredible new technology in its' tablets. Meanwhile, Google is being investigated by multiple governments, censoring, is full of viruses, and losing market share, Nintendo is failing when compared to the iPhone, and Free Software is a dying corpse that should be abandoned in favor of iPad apps.

bonch, why don't you disclose that you were paid to post this?

Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 15:18 · Score: 0

everything I submitted were true. Apple did post record-breaking sales, iPad does have 2048x1536 resolution, FCC did investigate Google. That makes me a journalist.
-bonch
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 17:14 · Score: 1

According to Wikipedia:A journalist collects and distributes news and other information.
So, it seems you call yourself journalist.
On the other hand a spammer pretty much fits the same definition.
Are you paid to post? Aren't paid posters required to disclose the affiliation?
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Graff · 2012-05-04 22:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

According to Wikipedia:A journalist collects and distributes news and other information.
So, it seems you call yourself journalist.
On the other hand a spammer pretty much fits the same definition.
There are lots of journalists that specialize and only report on a certain type of news. There are journalists that specialize on the automotive industry or politics or finance or technology.
The tech industry is hurting so there's negative stories about tech companies, apple is one of the only tech companies doing well so there's a bunch of positive stories about apple. If it was 15 years ago the situation would be flipped and we'd here people complaining about conspiracies AGAINST apple.
Not that there aren't paid shills but I think in this case it's unlikely that bonch is one. He's posted plenty of stories that aren't just pro-Apple/anti-Apple's competition. Sure he has a focus but that's probably just journalistic specialization. Now if he started seriously spinning Apple's failures in a positive light or the competition's successes in a negative light then you'd have some meat for your theories.

--
Sapere aude!
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 23:11 · Score: 1

That makes me a journalist.
Journalists disclose their affiliations, write balanced stories and try to write things of interest, entertainment and/or benefit to the reader, not some undisclosed third party.
You do none of these things.
You appear to be an astroturfer fraudulently and dishonestly pretending commercial propaganda - paid advertising - is objective news. It isn't, no matter how much you wish it was.
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 00:20 · Score: 1

cool, here is a quick primer on journalism. Basically, journalists at real newspapers are 'at war' with the ad people. The New York Times and other august institutions have strict editorial firewalls between journalists and business. Each side thinks the other is trying to drive their institution into the ground and doesn't understand the whole mission of the organization. As a journalist, you should be thinking that companies are trying to ruin you by spending money on your opinion. You should buy test equipment at random stores instead of getting 'review units', refuse any gifts from companies, and seek independent sources where possible. Most journalists wouldn't even have dinner on the tab of a company they're writing about; as a journalist, you should strive not to accept so much as a coffee in the cafeteria. Any direct payment is likewise inappropriate.
It's difficult to make money as an online journalist, because, for example, Slashdot does not pay for submissions, nor for comments. Investigation and critical research is not really supported directly. That means journalism is dying. I applaud you for seeking to stay a journalist in spite of this fact. Thank you for keeping up a noble and very important profession, and I hope you will agree that despite the financial difficulties, the public good is very well-served by the fourth estate.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate
Welcome to it.
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 01:18 · Score: 0

That makes me a journalist.
Journalists disclose their affiliations, write balanced stories and try to write things of interest, entertainment and/or benefit to the reader, not some undisclosed third party.
You do none of these things.
You appear to be an astroturfer fraudulently and dishonestly pretending commercial propaganda - paid advertising - is objective news. It isn't, no matter how much you wish it was.
Not if they are fans of the Bronx scum. Or Muncheater Snited. ;)
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 02:52 · Score: 0

Who pays you to be a crybaby faggot?
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 07:43 · Score: 0

Sure the stories may have a grounding in truth and real Journalists serve a noble purpose,
but the question in this sub-thread:
Is bonch compensated on shilling?
Cuz, that would be a bonch of bad shit.
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Relayman · 2012-05-05 11:38 · Score: 1

Gee, I didn't know that Apple had to pay for any press. After all, even PC Magazine seems to have more Apple articles these days than Microsoft articles. I think you're just jealous. Not everything that I submit gets posted, either. I'm over it already.

--
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 15:54 · Score: 0

I am a faggot crybaby you insensitive clod!
Re:bonch was paid to post this by steelfood · 2012-05-05 17:31 · Score: 1

Considering this is /. and nobody actually writes any of these stories (except for the occasional self-promoter/slashvertisement), all he really has to do to qualify as a shill is to submit others' stories with such a bias.
E.g. if he submits plenty of Google stories, but all of them are negative, while there've been a ton of positive news coming out of Google at the same time, that's sufficient to qualify as an anti-Google shill.
In this case, this particular submitted appears to be primarily submitting stories that cast everyone except apple in a negative light, with particular focus on all of Apple's major competitors, while submitting only positive stories about Apple. It's just naivete to think that this person is merely "focusing" on Apple. If all those other negative submissions didn't clue you in to that particular bit, I'm not sure you deserve your interesting moderation (but that's the moderators' fault).
It's fairly obvious based on the pattern of accepted stories somebody's propping Apple up while gunning for everybody else. Now, you can argue that perhaps certain editors are biased in the stories they accept, or perhaps the entire editorial staff has become biased. But there's no evidence of that (yet). The list is applicable onto to this particular user, and certainly cannot be extrapolated to represent the entire editorial staff.
Now, it's not wrong to be biased. It's just not journalism. Not that this site has a great track record of journalistic integrity, but knowing that someone is a shill is still better than not.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:bonch was paid to post this by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 21:06 · Score: 0

bonch, why don't you disclose that you were paid to post this?
That would take serious balls.

You mean the Processor-Fairy came on a Ferry? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 15:36 · Score: 0

You mean the Processor-Fairy came on a Ferry?

I guess using a Bus was out of the question...

Sigh....

Quietly? by superdave80 · 2012-05-04 17:05 · Score: 1

Apple has quietly replaced the iPad 2's A5

How loudly should they replace them? Should they stand on rooftops and yell, "WE ARE REPLACING THE GODDAMN PROCESSORS IN THE IPAD!!! THAT IS ALL!"

Re:Quietly? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-04 17:52 · Score: 0

How loudly should they replace them?
The screws on those things are probably pretty tiny. I think that if they had music blaring, it would be distracting enough that it would make it harder to open up all the cases.
Re:Quietly? by Relayman · 2012-05-05 11:34 · Score: 1

Yes, so all the fanboys can wet their pants!

--
If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?

Re:Cooling by iinlane · 2012-05-04 17:33 · Score: 1

Actually, we did! At stock clocks the ivy bridge consumes less power an produces less heat. This is especially true for underclocked laptop versions.

Slightly Off-Topic: On Macs being overpriced by Qbertino · 2012-05-04 20:53 · Score: 4, Insightful

The sad part is neither is the Macbook. It's a bloody computer and an obsolete one at that.

I still constantly hear and read this. I'd go as far and say ever since Jobs rejoined Apple and introduced OS X this isn't the case anymore.
I'm a die hard nerd/geek with 13 years of Linux experience, and I love nothing more than a well-configured x86-Linux driven piece of hardware *and* ever since I stopped buying the most recent windows games - sometime back in 2001 or so - I allways go for the most bang for buck.

Why then is it that I'm typing this on a MB Air?

Quite frankly, because there is no alternative. It's Unix with most of the Bash & CLI toolstack preinstalled. It has a touchpad that for once isn't built by the techstandards of 1995 - i.e. doesn't suck like an industry-grade vacuum cleaner. It has a 64bit core 2 duo CPU and a battery life management built into the OS that was built by the exact same people that built the battery and the motherboard and everthing else inside it 1,3kg light aluminum enclosure.
Ok, there are, as of now, Ultrabooks out there that don't come with MS tax and cost less with simular performance. But when I bought this one, after long and carefull consideration, there wasn't an alternative.
A PC that doesn't even come close to the current cheapest Mac Mini in size, noise, ease of handling and performance costs upwards of 1000$ at least. The cheapest mac mini costs 600$. Even if I replace the HDD with an SSD it will still be no more expensive or even cheaper than a PC equivalent.

A different example: I recently got myself an HTC Flyer tablet - also after long and carefull consideration. The upsides were: Cheap (bargain offer), precisely the right size and no Apple AppStore / X-Code ADC lock-in. And it was the only one that could compete with Apple quality wise. Actually, i I find the HTC Flyer to have a more pristine enclosure than the iPads.
Yet again, I'm a computer expert and have very specific considerations to make when buying such a device.
The newest iPad comes at 479 Euros and is at least a generation ahead of everything else in the tablet world - if I were a mere consumer that would be a very attractive prospect and anyone would be hard pressed to find a better offer price wise.

Bottom line:
Apple is loosing karma by the minute with a lot of experts, for the reasons we all know - but the legend that their hardware is overpriced is simply that: A legend. Within the spec-range they choose to deliver and cater to, they are, in fact, quite a good value. Denying that is just being silly.

My 2 cents.

--
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca

Re:Slightly Off-Topic: On Macs being overpriced by Ecuador · 2012-05-05 05:08 · Score: 1

Apple is loosing karma by the minute with a lot of experts, for the reasons we all know - but the legend that their hardware is overpriced is simply that: A legend. Within the spec-range they choose to deliver and cater to, they are, in fact, quite a good value. Denying that is just being silly.
Allow me to speak as one of the "silly" people.
3 years ago my company got me a 13" Macbook for $1300 and my wife got a 14" Compaq with similar hardware (both C2D 2.1GHz) for $600. The Macbook was heavier than the larger-screen Compaq, more than twice the price and overall it was a much worse experience than my previous laptops so I returned it in just a couple of months.
A bit over a year ago, my company got me a MacPro for 4500Euro (I was now in Europe). It would be over 5500 Euro if I had not bought and installed the 12GB RAM myself. A few months before that I had assembled a 1000Euro PC for myself. It turns out the PC was not only faster but also had USB 3 and eSATA, neither of which were on the MacPro because even though they are definitely useful to connect disk arrays on a professional workstation like the MacPro, Apple just had to wait for something they approve. And, besides, you would always spend more money to get an expensive third party esata card, right? Also the PC was more silent, yeah, if you get the proper hardware (Antec in my case) you can build better than Apple and much cheaper. Then, let's go to the "superdrive". It was so loud (vibrations) and slow that I replaced it with a drive I had around. Why put such a miserable drive on a high end machine? Oh, and the first time I had to do a video-conference I found out that unlike $100 machines, the only microphone jack was at the back of the huge machine and mine actually did not even work! Another yay for the 4500 euro Apple marvel.
So don't tell me Apple=expensive is a myth. If my company was not paying I would never spend all that money for a Mac. And the iphone is also way too expensive. It has gotten better of course. Remember that for the first iphone you had to pay an arm and a leg to Apple/AT&T when the hardware specs of the device were a generation behind the Dell PDAs of several years back (If you had an Axim X50/51v back in 2004/2005 you'll know what I am talking about) which were sold under $300 back in THEIR day. At least the 4S has good hardware.
The only real exception I see is the iPad. For the first time, with the New iPad (what a brilliant name...) I see Apple going after hardware dominance at a very competitive price, and they made the iPad 2, which was already not really overpriced and with decent hardware, even cheaper. I don't know, perhaps this trend will pass on to Macs as well so in the future perhaps they have top-specs and a competitive price tag? Or is it just an attempt to get all the tablet market share right now?

--
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Re:Slightly Off-Topic: On Macs being overpriced by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-05 05:16 · Score: 0

I'm not a fanboy either way. I have a windows gaming rig, a few linux boxes, and a bunch of apple products. But come on...
I've never charged myself $200 for $100 (at most) worth of RAM or $500 for a $400 (at most) SSD drive on any of the boxes I've built. And Apple isn't paying full price for that RAM or SSD - and you are already paying them for the HDD that aren't going to install. To say their hardware isn't overpriced is questionable. A case could be made that it's just that you are paying for the form factor and then again for the convenience of having them install it in that form factor, but it should hardly be any surprise if people consider that overpriced.
Re:Slightly Off-Topic: On Macs being overpriced by thegarbz · 2012-05-05 11:18 · Score: 1

Even if you claim that the Macbook isn't overpriced (it is unless you start counting the shiny factor like ooooh aluminium casing etc) saying that a Mac retains 50% of its original value makes it LUDICROUSLY overpriced. After two years computers are effectively worthless regardless if they are ooooh so shiny.
Also I don't buy into the well made computer argument. All my computers whether they have been plastic or mag alloy have been bashed around. All of them including my 10 year old Dell still work just fine (minus battery at this point). I have not owned a computer that wasn't "well made" but then I also haven't chased the absolute cheapest I could find either. Yet funny enough I could never afford a comparable mac. I tried a few times but couldn't justify parting with the money over the years.

Re:Cooling by swalve · 2012-05-05 00:34 · Score: 2

Yes, but it also concentrates the footprint of the area generating the heat, requiring more and more exotic heat spreaders.

Re:Cooling by tgibbs · 2012-05-05 02:07 · Score: 1

As reported in TFA, the die-shrunk version runs a bit cooler. Which if you know your thermodynamics, is pretty much inevitable if it has lower power consumption.

little late.. by SuperDre · 2012-05-05 03:33 · Score: 1

this was already said when they introduced the iPad 3, so it's nothing new actually..

Re:Cooling by Honclfibr · 2012-05-05 08:43 · Score: 1

As reported in TFA, the die-shrunk version runs a bit cooler. Which if you know your thermodynamics, is pretty much inevitable if it has lower power consumption.

How much thermodynamics do you need to know that things that draw less power run less hot?

Would iPad micro be the next fad ? by Taco+Cowboy · 2012-05-05 15:39 · Score: 1

Apple used to have Apple, Apple ][, Apple III, and then they jumped to MacIntosh (they scrapped Lisa)

Will they do the same with iPad?

--
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !

Who cares? It's all about the information by SuperKendall · 2012-05-08 12:20 · Score: 1

I assume you were also paid for your post, since you are so persistent in your attacks.

You know what? I don't care if you or Bonch made more/any money. Why should I care? All I care about is the quality of information presented, obviously many people are paid along the chain, after all the sites with the links are paid somehow also.

I especially do not care on Slashdot, where I can rely on comments to quickly bubble up a new link if there is a better/contrary view on the information presented.

All your post offers is noise and not a little bit of envy.

Perhaps you should devote your Nerd Rage into coming up with better links than Bonch, thereby displacing him. But you'll not do that, you'll simply continue to whine instead of taking real action.

--
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley

Apple battery by Anonymous Coward · 2012-05-12 19:19 · Score: 0

Nos batteries neuves sont généralement déchargées et dispose d'une faible capacité (chaqu'une d'elle est testée avant l'envois).Il est fortement recomandé de vider la batterie jusqu'à 0% de sa capacité puis de la chargée toute une nuit et la revidée à 0% encore,faite cela 3 fois pour permettre d'utiliser ces capacitées au maximum. Etat: Neuf Composition:Li-ion Capacité: 5600mAh Tension: 10.8V Couleur: Silver Dimensions: 138.60 x112.50 x14.20mm http://www.pc-portable-batterie.fr/batterie-pour-apple-a1175.html

Slashdot Mirror

Apple Quietly Updates iPad 2's Processor

127 comments