By Peninsula Daily News staff and The New York Times
THE CRITICS ARE weighing in on the new iPad, which could easily have been called the iPad 3 if Apple wasn’t trying so hard to be less predictable.
The consensus seems to be that this is no radical reinvention, just an evolution of the iPad 2. In other words, it’s a bit predictable.
David Pogue of The New York Times — http://tinyurl.com/7cascol — writes that the technical improvements in the new model “keep it at the forefront of desirability — just ahead of the snapping jaws of its Android competition — but don’t take it in any new directions.”
He likes the fast download speeds in the new 4G model, but notes that Apple has made the device slightly larger so as to fit a bigger battery that can handle the demands of 4G.
Walt Mossberg of All Things D — http://tinyurl.com/857fo5z — really liked the “retina” display, which Apple says has more pixels than an HDTV.
He calls it “like getting a new eyeglasses prescription — you suddenly realize what you thought looked sharp before wasn’t nearly as sharp as it could be.”
The batch of improvements in the new iPad “strengthen its position as the best tablet on the market,” Mossberg writes.
Jason Snell of Macworld — http://tinyurl.com/8yjuevb — has a nice image illustrating the improved pixel count.
Macworld’s speed benchmarks show that apart from the improved graphics performance, the new model is “roughly the same speed as the old one.”
Mashable — http://tinyurl.com/7ktwavh — has links to a few more reviews.
