For me, the most exciting announcement has to be the line of Smart Covers.
iPad covers aren't new, but this cover looks like it could solve the ergonomic problem of typing on your iPad or watching a movie/TV show while you're not sitting on a couch. It also protects your iPad's screen without adding bulk.
EDIT: @marcoarment: "The Smart Cover might be the best feature of the iPad 2. I can't possibly express how much I hate every iPad 1 case for some reason."
really? with 15 millions units sold in 9 months and 90% market I wonder if editors still think that tablets can be a lucrative platform
EDIT: I'm not being sarcastic, but my opinion is not related to the technology. I'm talking about the potentials of tablets as a new media+ads distribution platform and that number doesn't seem so impressive to me, so far.
This is just another way of saying that tablets are a horrible form factor.
For some uses, certainly (hence the reason why my TC1100 spends 95% of it's life in laptop mode) but for other uses they're perfect. I see the stand as a way of saying "use a tablet for what it's good for and here's an option for being able to use it for less-than-optimal situations that still beats lugging another device around."
Their case for the first iPad is very cludgy. Harsh edges, always looks tatty, the least impressive solution to an ergonomic dictate that Apple have produced (except for their mice) and yet I'd never remove it.
It's great for what it does. Provides a scratch free case and a tactile surface and 3D gripping 'column' that's needed to casually use the device in a wide variety of general use situations (plus the pocket to store the screen wipe for the inevitable smudges).
That they've made redundant the market for scratch-protective cases, while improving on the other two must-have ergonomic features is a bit funny.
Anyone notice at the end of the video on Apple's site the disclaimer about the colors potentially wearing off on the leather versions? Still love the concept and I'd just go with a poly one anyway. Definitely agree with the ergonomics aspect as well. I think the Smart Cover is pretty brilliant in its simplicity.
Lots of dyed leathers have a tendency to take scratches, scuffs, etc., and generally weather over time. A lot of folks love this effect, especially on furniture, shoes, jackets, and other items made of leather. Other folks either don't care for the effect, or simply haven't owned leather items long enough for the distressing to kick in. My guess is that Apple is preparing that latter set of consumers for some sort of weathering/distressing over time.
Does anyone have a coloured leather case for an existing device here?
Is this something to be expected when working with dyed leather? Are Apple just being cautious by preempting 'leather-gate' or something similar wherever they can with this product launch?
I think when folks are saying the most exciting feature is the 'smart covers' they are using hyperbole. They haven't gotten a chance to touch and use the iPad 2 to determine speed improvements or OS improvements. If they already have an iPhone 4, they've already experienced the excited with the cameras, FaceTime, and even how thin it is.
For everyone who is comparing this against the previous iPad and not the iPhone 4, the most exciting features are probably 1) cameras 2) A5 chip or 2) HDMI out.
It's slightly obscene that a tablet that's so similar is being released so soon, obsoleting the first generation and encouraging a fair few people to upgrade for the sake of it.
Device hardware doesn't matter if the device is hard to use. Smart Covers could solve the iPad's ergonomic problems, and that's far more important to users than two cameras or HDMI out.
Non-sequitur. We're talking about features about the iPad 2 and suddenly you're asking about iPad 1 users? Improving a device every generation is common in tech. Everyone knows this.
But personally, I think promotion of a new version - because it's compatible with an accessory which fixes ergonomic issues - is a bit a wrong. The iPad 2 is faster and slimmer .. and has some web-cams built in - but this constant pursuit of 'progress' is a bit worrying. Especially when an iteration provides such (arguably) small gains.
This is exactly what I was thinking. I wasn't realistically expecting anymore than what was presented, but I got sucked into the hype machine last minute.
As a result, the case truly stood out to me. Apple improved on ideas that have been implemented by some other standout companies before. Any hardcore BlackBerry user knows the magnets in the BlackBerrys and their holster makes the holster/phone combo an integral part of the BlackBerry experience. Then, you get the folding stand which was most notably (to me) done by InCase.
I'm truly impressed at the SmartCover. Very well executed, both on the marketing side and the (technical) design side.
I agree with this; I often carry my iPad naked or in a simple sleeve because every protective case that I've seen or used just makes it slightly-more-just-enough-to-be-annoying difficult to hold and use.
The auto-refresh on this page is rather annoying. I was attempting to skim the whole thing, and in the middle, the entire page was replaced by a connection-refused error (I imagine they're getting some heavy load, but I don't know why they wouldn't use some sort of AJAX refresh). Here's a link with that parameter removed:
For me, the most interesting announcement was that $2 Billion had been paid out to App Store developers to date.
That means Apple's 30% of App Store purchases is currently $857MM and change.
I also find myself wondering what portion of that $2B went to Angry Birds. I wouldn't be surprised if Angry Birds turns out to be the first >$100MM business on the App Store.
So... a dual core processor, two cameras, and... that's it? I was honestly expecting a LOT more considering how much competition they're getting this year. The new cover is neat, and it seems like they did a great job with the Movie and Garage Band apps, but the new iPad 2 is pretty underwhelming. Same old low resolution, no USB ports, and no desperately needed UI changes (I'm guessing iOS 5 wasn't ready yet and you'll have to wait for the new iPhone announcement).
The only good thing still going for it is the price, and if the past few years of the smartphone market has taught us anything, we'll soon see a flood of a variety of cheap tablets on all the service providers using Android. Can the iPad 2 compete with that? We'll see.
Did you really expect Apple to add USB ports to the iPad? Also, new iOS wasn't part of this announcement.
All in all it's a pretty solid hardware refresh (the thinner case being the highlight.) The screen probably will be in v3, since the cost is probably still too high.
Thunderbolt is actually based on the Mini DisplayPort specification. If anything, Apple will add this to the iPad, but it will look quite different than USB.
The next iPad, rumored for September of this year, is more likely to include major new features, including a higher-resolution display and more connectivity (i.e. Thunderbolt).
It's doubtful that the iPad is going to refresh that dramatically by September. It's even more doubtful that Thunderbolt would be in such a refresh – they would have to add PCIe support to their ARM SOC and that doesn't seem trivial.
(Though it's entirely possible it's in the new A5 and they said nothing about it)
I think Apple went out of their way to make it seem like iPad2 is a long-running product:
- end of video, Ive saying "iPad2 will define the category for years to come"
- 2011: the year of iPad2
Both of these are, I believe, explicit attempts to make people NOT think a new iPad3 is coming soon (so people won't wait, and will buy now instead), but in reality these two things perhaps support the iPad3 in September rumors...
In the UK the 32GB Xoom WiFi is the same price as the 32CB iPad WiFi. There was a leaked ad with a price that was the same as the 16GB iPad, but they officially announced it after the iPad 2 anouncement and raised it £50.
Of course that's not counting the $40 dollar HDMI dongle that's not needed for the Xoom.
The Xoom is $600, not $800, and my comment said soon. Android smartphones started out slow as well as you may or may not remember.
Apple Fanboys were all too eager to laugh at the first model or two of phone running on Android, and now look who's running the market just a short time later. If you don't see any correlation between what happened then and what's happening now I honestly don't know what to tell you.
> and now look who's running the market just a short time later.
Can we stop with the "market share" talk? No one is "running" the smartphone market. What is this, Engadget?
Android benefits from mass adoption, since Google makes money on ads. So they license their OS for free to a bunch of manufacturers. They're doing pretty well.
Apple benefits from a simple, walled-off platform because that's their design philosophy. So they update a few products a year. They, too, are doing pretty well.
What competitors are shipping their tablets by March 11? Last I saw for RIM was April. Loaded question perhaps, but the "iPad killers" based on Honeycomb aren't out en masse yet.
This is a tablet that has to stand against the next entire year of competitors, at Apple's current release schedule. It's not even caught up to the Xoom in terms of hardware specs. Like the iPhone before it, it'll be tough competition against the wave of competitors that have faster release schedules.
The general public doesn't buy Apple products by way of rational decision-making. They buy it because it's Apple and to be part of the community and culture of Apple fans.
The only good thing still going for it is the price
Price + Quality. Plus the existing app store. Honeycomb has no apps and it seems really really buggy. Feels like Google rushed it out. iOS on the iPad feels polished and refined.
Two things need to happen for Android in 2011. Honeycomb needs to get stabilized. No more crashing or freezes. AND we need to see a $350 high quality tablet. Until then Apple will continue to clean up.
This kind of thinking is what has allowed Apple to sweep up so much damn money, along with ownership of the DAP and tablet markets. Give people what they actually need instead of filling out spec lists to appeal to the nerds.
But that was not because the iPod had no wireless, neither because it had less space than Nomad. I hope we can all agree, with the benefit of hindsight, that the reason for the slow uptake of the iPod was a combination of it being Firewire only, it being Mac only, Apple not being the brand they are now, and the fact that people were not really familiar with and didn't quite understand the concept of digital music.
I think we're both making the same point here - the original iPod had a lot of friction holding it back with consumers. What I was attempting to elude to was this: until the iPod had better connectivity options (USB and PC support) in addition to reaching storage parity (40gb by gen 3) it finally blossomed and took over the market. It's not that the 1st gen iPod was garbage - it wasn't - it just lacked some crucial components before it could conquer the market.
Apple doesn't have to do much to appeal to the mass market of people that purchase their products. The iPad 2 could have only added a camera, and it would sell by the millions this year.
Apple has very good PR. It's allowed them to create a nice ecosystem of brand loyalty where people will always come out to buy their "next great thing" year after year. They've made a good profit from it, so it must be working.
When you go beyond the people that buy Apple products because they're Apple products, to people that actually make a conscious and informed decision about what they buy, there are definitely several valid concerns and reasons not to buy into it. Pointing to large sales numbers as a counter-argument to criticism is just plain silly.
> Apple doesn't have to do much to appeal to the mass market of people that purchase their products.
Of course they do. They're not selling $20 pairs of jeans, here. They're selling expensive stuff that requires a conscious decision to purchase. Apple needs to provide a compelling case to move their product. It's not practical to buy something just because it's from Apple. It has to actually do something for you as a user.
> Apple has very good PR.
This line is exhausting. Apple has very good products. The great marketing and PR is a result of having very good products.
You can't sell 15 million units of a brand new, $500 product in nine months on the strength of TV ads and magazine pieces. It has to actually work well. There may be an initial element of brand trust to grease the skids for launch but sustained sales require something real.
My parents aren't Apple fans. They're not nerds. They spend a lot of time frustrated with technology. They're nuts about their iPad because it works really well. That's it. Adding a USB port isn't going to make them like it better. It's going to make it more complex, which is going to degrade their experience in using it.
"Oh, well, that whole 12 hour battery thing? Doesn't count if you use the USB port. Then it's something else."
"What? Why?"
"USB uses power."
"Why?"
etc.
> Pointing to large sales numbers as a counter-argument to criticism is just plain silly.
You continue to miss the point. The criticism isn't valid. Apple has sold a shitload of iPads on the strength of its simplicity. You're talking about making it less simple. In that case, its success is more than ample refutation of your assertion that adding junk to its spec list is going to somehow improve things.
It's like saying, around 1950 "Hey, turn the automobile into a Rhinoceros – then it'll be able to hit things with its horns."
"But people don't buy cars to do that. Look how well they're selling."
"Sales are not a valid refutation of my criticism that cars have no horns to hit things with!"
etc.
But like I said: Chalking it all up to clever marketing, instead of painstaking investments in software design, hardware fabrication and supply chain optimization is how everyone else keeps dropping the ball while Apple sprints all the way to the bank year after year.
>>My parents aren't Apple fans. They're not nerds. They spend a lot of time frustrated with technology. They're nuts about their iPad because it works really well. That's it. Adding a USB port isn't going to make them like it better. It's going to make it more complex, which is going to degrade their experience in using it.
This is interesting. I'm curious, how do they manage the music/photos/videos in their ipad? Doesn't syncing by cord with the computer a messy thing? Or do you do it for them? How do they use it?
If Apple had added a USB port, the same folks would be singing praises on it. Same thing happened with the G5 to Intel switch. The exact same people who were railing on Intel and praising the G5 for speed/features etc. did a complete aboutface.
You honestly don't believe that most Apple customers just buy Apple products because of the brand name on the box?
Go survey anyone buying the products in the store or online. See how long it takes you to get an answer along the lines of: "I researched all my options and this seemed like the best choice."
> You can't sell 15 million units of a brand new, $500 product in nine months on the strength of TV ads and magazine pieces. It has to actually work well.
The iPad by any other name and company would not have sold close to that amount.
>You honestly don't believe that most Apple customers just buy Apple products because of the brand name on the box?
This is a ridiculous stance. It is dismissive and doesn't explain how Apple turned around from being an almost bankrupt company to what it is today.
You ignore how that brand was built. Esp when Apple was on the verge of death in the late 90's. They couldn't rely on their brand at that point, could they? Apple as a powerhouse is a relatively recent phenomenon.
It's like saying Zappos customers are only loyal to Zappos because of their brand, and not their customer service. Their customer service is how they built their brand. Similarly, Apple built their brand on some really great products.
> The iPad by any other name and company would not have sold close to that amount.
That's definitely true. An iPad by another company would not sell anywhere close to 15 million units in nine months. Why?
* Low standards for overall product quality, along with short term gotta make Wall Street happy this quarter thinking, so products get rushed to market
* Sloppy software/hardware integration
* No access to 20 years of NeXTStep/OS X libraries and tools to build an awesome developer experience, so apps will suck
* No supply chain optimization to provide an outstanding form factor at a compelling price
* No consistent, worldwide retail presence to allow users to experiment with the new product and have questions answered
* No culture of absurd exhaustive prototyping to ensure that the user experience works well once the product is in the hands of customers
> You honestly don't believe that most Apple customers just buy Apple products because of the brand name on the box?
I honestly believe the Apple brand gets people into the store. Once they're in the store, the actual product sells itself. Any further influence of the brand in the purchasing decision comes down to the simple truth that Apple has been consistently making better shit than everyone else for years. But you can't pay a PR firm for that.
You haven't actually tried being an Apple user outside of the first world, have you?
Apple's consistent, worldwide retail presence in Poland consists of two "Apple shops" in Warsaw [1]. Apple's consistent, worldwide retail presence in Trinidad and Tobago consists of not-officially-authorized resellers [2]. These are not the exceptions.
I was in Hong Kong a few months ago. Apple doesn't have any of their own stores there but I was surprised how many third party retailers picked up on doing things their way.
In the IFC, an awesome knockoff of a real Apple store sells Macs and iPads in a bright, open space, letting users kick the tires.
A Fortress store in Macau wasn't nearly as Apple-like as all that, but you could still poke around at a real iPad.
They may not be, themselves, in every single country, but 300 stores on four continents and in eleven countries is a much bigger hands-on presence than other competing tablet manufacturers can claim, without even getting into the third party distributors that cover even more of the globe.
35% thinner, 15% lighter, HDMI out, plus the improvements you mentioned... it's not revolutionary, but it's a strong second showing I think. It'd be nice if it was a lot lighter, but that's battery tech and the 10 hour choice speaking.
They really need to fix the notification system and the multitasking model. Now that we have a CPU that screams while sipping power, there's not a large case against it.
The constant waiting (IM apps in particular) when task-switching is aggravating, and the one point where Android can really whip the hell out of the iPad.
Apple is well known for coming up with ten prototypes, bringing it down to three potential shipping products, and then selecting just one.
You can be certain that somewhere in mid 2010, there was a higher resolution version of the iPad 2 that was either in the first group of ten, or possibly even down selected to the final group of three. For reasons of cost, power consumption, or, perhaps competitive pressure (Nobody else was coming out with a tablet with a high resolution, so they could hold off until the iPad 3, or possibly 4) that was not the product you saw today.
10 to 3 to 1. Take the pixel-perfect approach and pile on top of it the requirement that Apple designers expect to design 10 different mockups of any new feature under consideration. And these are not just crappy mockups; they all represent different, but really good, implementations that are faithful to the product specifications.
Then, by using specified criteria, they narrow these 10 ideas down to three options, which the team spends months further developing…until they finally narrow down to the one final concept that truly represents their best work for production.
This approach is intended to offer enormous latitude for creativity that breaks past restrictions. But it also means they inherently plan to throw away 90% of the work they do. I don’t know many organizations for which this would be an acceptable ratio. Your CFO would probably declare, “All I see is money going down the drain.” This is a major reason why I say you can’t innovate like Apple.
Well, they don't have any serious competition at the moment. Why push prices up or profit margins down with a high res screen when they can introduce one at a later (and cheaper) date?
Pushing prices up or margins down would make them less competitive. More importantly, they have to be able to manufacture with quality in increasingly gigantic volume. Sure they're making choices, but that's not the same as holding back.
It's also a nice trump card to pull out if a nice shiny new tablet looks like it will begin eating into Apple's marketshare. If they think the iPad 2 can already comfortably take on the Xoom (etc), why would they try to add too much now?
Love the faster processor, HDMI out and better Safari performance. However, the main reason I'd upgrade my iPad would be for better resolution. Going from my iPhone 4, the iPad's screen just looks like crap. I primarily use the iPad for reading websites and Instapaper, and my guess is that I'm not alone.
Apple kit holds its value very well, as you would expect from a product that is selling almost as fast as it can be made. Gazelle.com is currently offering me 60% of the retail price of my old iPad. Must... resist...
Looks like Gazelle's offer just went down to $283. They're convenient if you don't want to use Craigslist, but note that they will always lowball you (since they're planning to resell it themselves).
I sold my original base model iPad for $400 on Craigslist last week ($100 less than I paid). I'm sure you could still get at least $300 now, more if you put in the time to write a good ad and/or offer to deliver nearby.
Hee hee, I knew I should have clicked that button before I posted here. ;)
I find that Gazelle's value proposition has been pretty good, for me. I'm happy to surrender a few dozen dollars in exchange for not having to deal with Craigslist or eBay.
I've got a co-worker who sold his 3gs about a year ago. He said it was a great experience. On seeing your comment I just started the process of selling my iPad 32gb wifi to gazelle. $437, not bad. I won't be buying the 2nd gen. I just want to offload mine before the value drops out of it.
It's not crazy -- having the latest and greatest feels good, and $500 or whatever it costs is not much money for a once-a-year pleasure outlay. Consider what a car costs, and consider that some people buy a new one every 5 years. Now that's crazy.
Our only TV is a 32" CRT that I got for $500 in early 2001 as a college sophomore. I felt guilty about that for a few years afterwards, but at this point I can safely say it was a good purchase.
> However, the main reason I'd upgrade my iPad would be for better resolution.
There was never going to be a resolution upgrade this year. It's simply not feasible to push 2048x1536 on 9.7" screens right now. Next year maybe, but this year nope.
Yes, the changes look exciting, but I'm holding out for a better screen too, primarily because of how black-and-white text looks.
Isn't that a problem on the Kindle, which has an even lower resolution? (I've never seen one in the wild here in Europe). I'd love a 200ppi Kindle, but maybe such a high pixel density is unnecessary with e-ink?
"maybe such a high pixel density is unnecessary with e-ink?"
That's right. E-ink pixels are not square, don't have gaps, and don't use three colour pixels to create white. A higher pixel density with e-ink would be nice, but isn't as necessary as it is with LCD.
In my experience, the Kindle resolution is sufficient to be like printed text. My guess is that because it's black and white only, you don't need to worry about the sort of sub-pixel font rendering that LCD's do.
The piano on Garage Band is touch-sensitive (dynamic volume depending how hard you press)? That almost is, dare I say it... magical.
All in all, goalposts shifted once again. Can't wait to see what sort of games hit the AppStore (although I suppose backwards compatibility will hinder the uptake of the '9x better' graphics)
How does that account for finger size though? Children might have a hard press of the same area as my light press. Hm, could be they look at the rate of change in the growth of the tap event...but this wouldn't provide information about mass. I think it's a no go.
We need a force here. They know how heavy the iPad is. They have an acceleration. There's a force.
This is an interesting idea. If one wanted to attempt a mechanism like this in iOS, what APIs would be useful? I don't know UIGestureRecognizer & friends very well at all, but it looks like it wouldn't help when needing to measure contact-area at a given contact point. Any iOS programmers here that know?
A good capacitive screen can determine the diameter of the touchpoint as well as the center. It's translating finger squish into pressure. It might also be looking at rate of change of the diameter over time to figure velocity.
I find it fascinating that the technology is so pushed to the background, putting the experience front and center, that they don't even mention how much memory it has. This is a very conscious decision.
As expected, the 1st gen went on clearance. Starting at $399 for 16GB WiFi only and going up to $729 for 64GB WiFi & 3G. The refurb prices were discounted as well at $349 and $659 respectively.
No mention (yet) of changes to iOS. Clearly they haven't changed the home screen or added widgets, only the hardware seems to have significant upgrades.
If Honeycomb is going to excel this year, it will be because they can surpass Apple in the UI. We'll see...
(posting this mid-presentation, it's possible iOS changes will come soon)
He's talking about 4.3 now. No apparent huge updates, but things like making the mute/rotation lock switch a preference will be appreciated. Improved AirPlay support (can work with websites now), shared hotspot on iPhone, etc etc.
Probably the biggest news for this crowd is Safari's JS boost with the Nitro Javascript Engine.
I really want to be able to do a timed mute on my iPhone. I keep on putting my phone on mute to see a movie, then my girlfriend is mad at me the next morning because I don't answer the phone.
Simple: you only get to use the software timer/switch if the hardware switch is mapped to orientation lock, which is what I was getting at in the first place.
(I have a problem, in that I assume everyone thinks things out two steps ahead, because that's how it works in my family. This is why bystanders sometimes wonder if we all share a gene for schizophrenia. Our conversations seem disconnected.)
The screen is rigidly attached to the rest of the device, so yes, it should be possible to use the accelerometer (F=ma) to measure a force applied to the screen.
from the iOS 4 page: "the built-in dictionaries support over 50 languages and dialects"
Hmpf, I just splurged on German-English, French, and Korean dictionaries a few days ago... :-( Still, if this means I can tap a word in any app, say Le Monde, and an explanation/definition pops up, I'll be superhappy. At the moment, one needs to switch back and forth between dictionary and app.
The current iOS 4.2 does not include any standalone Dictionary apps, AFAIK. I believe "dictionary" here refers to the system’s built-in spelling autocorrect and suggestion engine, which lacks definitions.
Looking at Engadget's coverage, the tone of Steve's closing seems very different from any past event I can recall. It's always about Apple and about the Product. Jobs is very focused and doesn't "accidentally" include information in his presentations that isn't deliberate.
Why then would he include that slide depicting the intersection of technology and liberal arts? Why bother using a product launch to make a mission statement: "This is worth repeating. It's in Apple's DNA that technology is not enough. It's tech married with the liberal arts and the humanities. Nowhere is that more true than in the post-PC products. Our competitors are looking at this like it's the next PC market. That is not the right approach to this. These are post-PC devices that need to be easier to use than a PC, more intuitive."
edit (Commenters have pointed out that the slide was used in the iPad launch as well. Sorry, chalk that up to fuzzy memory on my part.)
That doesn't sound like a product pitch to me. It sounds like a going-away message to Apple's employees. It's a public reminder of what Apple stands for, even without Jobs at the helm.
Jobs also highlighted very prominently the scope of apple beyond the stage presenters: "I'd like the teams that worked on this to stand up -- give them a round of applause. And as always, I'd like to thank everyone's families. They support us and let us do what we need to do. They make it possible for us to work our tails off."
Perhaps I'm reading more into this than necessary, but this change in tone appears to be significant. It's the first steps to mapping out a post-Jobs Apple. A public recognition that the success or failure doesn't hinge upon one man's presence, but instead the atmosphere and culture that was developed under his tenure.
I'd like to be wrong, but this may be of the last times we see Steve Jobs take the stage, and I think he knows it.
Good point. Somehow it didn't stick with me that it was used before. But, I think the tone is very different in this context. It's hard to pin it down, but the way he used it previously seemed less reflective and more promotional. Of course, the re-use could just be incidental, but I think its re-use may give it even more weight.
> Jobs also highlighted for the first time the scope of apple beyond the stage presenters: "I'd like the teams that worked on this to stand up -- give them a round of applause. And as always, I'd like to thank everyone's families. They support us and let us do what we need to do. They make it possible for us to work our tails off."
This is why I love Apple. They heavily advertise the iPad during the holiday season, I foolishly purchase one for my parents, and they release a new model three months later.
Are they planning to release a new iPad every year or just with every new iOS update?
Apple works on a yearly refresh cycle. They release new versions of their products every year at about the same time. You can expect a new iPad around the same time next year and I expect the iPhone 5 in the next couple months.
John Gruber noticed this. He made the prediction that the iPad 3 would come in fall, along with the new iPods. This would allow people to buy the iPad during the holiday season without worrying a newer model coming a few months later.
Why are people so interested in white versions of the iPhone/iPad? Is it merely a matter of preference or is there some kind of significant difference? (I ask this earnestly, and not to troll.)
I currently have the first generation iPad. The thing that tempts me about the iPad 2 is the front facing camera for video conferencing. I think I'll wait and see what the reviews are like first...
One thing for which I have high admiration for apple is that they never give competitors the space to breathe ever they are quite ahead in the game. :)
The most exciting thing is that they kept the price same.
I don't know what Apple is thinking with these iMovie and GarageBand apps. Everybody knows the iPad is only for consumption. Did they not get the memo?
iMovie refused to run on the iPad 1 because the RAM was only 256. iMovie only ran on the iPhone 4, because it had 512 megabytes of RAM.
We can safely conclude that the iPad 2 has at least 512 megabytes of RAM, because iMovie requires that much.
I daresay RAM will be increased to 1 gigabyte (if not already) when the retina display for iPad debuts. 4x resolution requires more RAM, as I've noticed on the iPod Touch 4.
iPad covers aren't new, but this cover looks like it could solve the ergonomic problem of typing on your iPad or watching a movie/TV show while you're not sitting on a couch. It also protects your iPad's screen without adding bulk.
EDIT: @marcoarment: "The Smart Cover might be the best feature of the iPad 2. I can't possibly express how much I hate every iPad 1 case for some reason."
[0] http://www.apple.com/ipad/smart-cover/