IPad Air 2

I've had my iPad Air 2 for a couple of weeks now, unsurprisingly it is a great device.

The screen is beautiful, it's so good to have a retina screen on my iPad again (I had the original retina iPad before I got the iPad Mini). It's really fast, no surprise there, though there aren't any games that will really push the GPU yet so that will be fun to see what developers can get out of it. While the screen and CPU/GPU is great, the biggest upgrade in my book is the RAM (which Apple, of course, doesn't even bother mentioning). Exiting a game to find that all your Safari tabs are still loaded is awesome, then you browse a bit and read a few comics before you go back to the game and see that is still loaded, fantastic!

All that said, as I suspected I do miss the size of the Mini, but not for the reasons I expected to. While the Mini was half the weight of the third generation iPad the Air is only about a 100g heavier than the Mini, you can feel it but just barely. It's light enough to lie in bed and hold it with one hand. So, what's the problem you might ask?

Let's put it like this, what's the benefit of the larger screen? Sure, bigger screen when you watch a movie or play a game but besides that it doesn't give you anything the Mini won't. You don't fit more icons, not more of a webpage. When the Mini came out people were worried the UI would be too small, I'd argue in many cases the UI is too big on the Air.

Apple Event

Homescreen still features a 4 by 5 grid of icons. In other words, the iPad Air fits 4 fewer app icons per page than the iPhone 6. The iPhone 6 is one quarter the size of the iPad Air. How exactly does this make any sense? And then there are the folders which just waste so much screen space. Even if ou want to keep folder pages at 9 pages you could show multiple pages on the iPad.

Almost makes you wonder if there is no one (with any say) within Apple actually using iPads, how else did they miss this?

New iPad Air is thinner and faster. No mention about weight though and as usually the don't mention RAM. I expect it'll be lighter since it's thinner but would be nice to know. If it has 2GB or RAM (as rumoured) instead of one that's a big upgrade, shame you should have to look up review to know.

They really rushed past the upgraded Mini. No word if on if it got any thinner or if it has the same SOC as the new Air.

Sad to see they went with the same storage tiers as on the iPhone 6. 16 GB just shouldn't be an option any more.

My current iPad is a first generation Mini, it's slow, it's RAM constrained, doesn't have a retina screen or TouchID, I'll be getting one of the new iPads but I've known that for a while. Not sure which though. If the new Air is lighter I might just go for that rather than a new Mini and if the Mini doesn't have the same SOC as the Air well, that pushes me further towards the Air, if the Air has the rumoured 2GB RAM and the Mini doesn't that settles it.

Finally, "It's been way to long". I was really hoping that was referring to the Mac Mini and it did! I've been hoping it'd get an upgrade for quite some time and it looks like a really good one too. Flash storage sadly isn't the standard but it is an option even on the lowest tier (which is now cheaper). No quad core option though which is a shame. I'm kind of interested in moving to OS X for everyday usage and making my Windows PC a dedicated gaming machine, not sure if a dual core would be good enough. Definitely looking forward to reading some in-depth reviews.

URL Shorteners getting out of hand

There is sometimes a good reason to shorten a URL... But bouncing around the user 7 times between various shorteners and other services is just ridiculous.

$500 million for Beats Music, $2.5 billion for Beats Electronics

Apple Inc. is paying slightly less than $500 million for the Beats Music streaming service, and more than $2.5 billion for Beats Electronics in its $3 billion deal, according to people familiar with the matter.

Always a bit sceptic of "people familiar with the matter" if only one sixth of what Apple paid for Beats is for Beats Music, the streaming service is probably not what they wanted the most don't you think? Because if that was it, why not just buy Beats Music?

"Apple didn't want Beats, it needed Beats"

Amazing how quick the winds can turn huh?

Since the rumours about Apple buying Beats started there has been a lot of articles about why Apple would ever want to by Beats, especially for $3 billion. Now that the deal is official instead of questioning why Apple would want Beats we get articles about how Apple needed to buy Beats...

Ah, sensationalist tech journalism.

The article tries to make the case that Apple needs Beats for the streaming service because purchasing music is a dying trend and iTunes Radio has been a disappointment... Over 20 million users and the third largest streaming service in the US, and that's from March so they did that in six months, Beats Music isn't exactly on track to beat that.

The only disappointing thing about iTunes Radio is that it's currently limited to the US and Australia.

Pretty sure Apple did in fact want to buy Beats and not out of a need, I kind of doubt the Beats Music streaming service was the major interest as well.

Visit the archive for older posts.