Which iPad 3? 16 vs 32 vs 64 GB: Usage Scenarios, Experiences & Apps w main PC/Mac

Which iPad 3? 16 vs 32 vs 64 GB: Usage Scenarios, Experiences & Apps w main PC/Mac (especially a Thinkpad - X6x, T6x, T4xx, X2xx)

I believe a lot of people here have used the iPad 1, 2 and various versions of 16 vs 32 vs 64 GB scenario.

STORAGE SIZE:
- Some people here may have used only one of them
- Some may have started with one (16) and gone up to (32)
- Some may have had WiFi & later gone with 3G .. or others who got the 3G and realized they use WiFi more (with/ without MiFi)

USAGE SCENARIOS/ AREAS & EXPERIENCES with Other Devices:
- Some may be using it exclusively as their primary computing device - From Browsing to Creating Content (Docs, PPTs, Excel, Notes, Office, Imaging, Specific Apps etc etc)
- Some may be using it in tandem with a Desktop and/or Laptop that runs Windows or Mac or L*inux
- Some may have more devices in their usage ecosystem - SmartPhone (iPhone/ Android/ BB) + Kindle/E-ink/ E-book Reader + iPad + Netbook/ Laptop/ Tablet PC + Workstation/ Desktop etc + (maybe a central Home Server/ Media Server .. e.g.)

- Some may use it more for casual stuff while some use it more for official work, or some little bit of games.. some more.. some as a Productivity App/To do/ vs.. Some as a semi-book / magazine / occasional reader.. Some may use it quite a bit for MEDIA consumption (Music/ Video/ Movies.. TV Series..) when at home.. or when traveling?

- some may be using it as a transition device for when in travel / transit or when relaxing on bed/ couch or.. just REVIEWING etc.. while their primary work / when on desk / office/ creating/editing the content/ data is another machine.. that runs Windows or Mac or L*inux

- What kind of usage scenarios have you used for certain apps on iPad vs Main machine

So based on the above examples.. do share your PAST & PRESENT experiences with the iPad in and around your Tech/ Computing eco system.. and do share your RECOMMENDATION.. on which direction you are going (thereby helping people with SCENARIO SIMILAR TO YOURS.. to choose the right one.. 16 vs 32 vs 64.. 4G/ WiFi)

If there is such a similar thread or location where SEVERAL PEOPLE and SEVERAL EXAMPLES of such COMPARATIVE and VARYING .. USAGE SCENARIOS & PEOPLE EXPERIENCES have been outlined please do let me know.

Thanks.

PS: In my experience, I have temporarily used iPad 1 belonging to 2/3 friends of mine for some casual short web surfing and usage. Some casual game experience.
But, given my AFFINITY for High Screen Resolution Devices.. on my Laptops, Tablet PCs and 30" WQXGA (2560 x 1600), I chose to wait for the HIGH RES iPad..
I did not have an impending need for it.. but now it might become a great MIDDLE GROUND luxury and/ or take on some of Laptop/ Tablet PC functionalities (simpler stuff.. maybe more complex)..

ALSO: How would this change with people can add or who already have this external HDD hack to Jailbroken iPad

1TB HDD on iPad2 - step by step guide - Camera Connection Kit

 

I have owned all three iPads. I actually didn't plan on buying the iPad 3 since someone gave me an iPad 2 last year as a birthday gift. However, after seeing the iPad 3 in person and knowing how fast Verizon's LTE network is, I couldn't resist.

I went from a 64GB wi-fi only iPad 1 to a 64GB wi-fi only iPad 2 to a 32GB 4G iPad 3. I had always gone with 64GB as that was the maximum capacity and I was actually in scenarios where I wanted to watch video content for a long period of time (~10 hours) but did not have access to my computer or a wi-fi network. Even then though, 64GB was more than I required as my iPads often had about 16GB of free space. So my initial investment in the first iPad was mainly for media consumption. I would also use it to take some notes during meetings and whatnot but my iPad 1 usage remained rather casual.

Then I received my iPad 2 and started taking courses again that following September. My iPad usage went from being casual and focusing on media to becoming more professional. I downloaded an app called Notes Plus and also purchased a stylus. I have taken hand written notes for all of my classes now and uploaded them to my Dropbox account as PDF files. For some courses, I would actually go online, download the notes before the class, open them up in iAnnotate (Notes Plus now that they added PDF import compatibility), and add extra content when needed. I also held video conferences with my supervisor through FaceTime when I was on vacation.

Therein lied my main issue. I switched to more professional use of my iPad but I don't always have access to wi-fi. My campus is right across the street from where I am conducting my research but neither my office or my lab have wi-fi. The IT department would literally crap golden bricks if they knew an iPad was connected to their network (they are notorious for hating everything Apple). I wanted to be able to access the internet everywhere I went. I had originally wanted to get a 32GB 3G iPad 2 instead of the 64GB model but my Droid X manages to only get a 0.3Mbps download connection to Verizon in my office and lab. That wasn't enough to make be buy it. Others with at&t, Sprint, or T-Mobile can't even get 3G where I work so I guess that is something.

However, one of my friend's upgraded their smartphone to a Verizon LTE one and they have a somewhat solid connection. The bars are only half full but that is enough for them to have a download speed of 10Mbps. That is more than enough to have me sold on getting an LTE capable iPad 3 and seeing as how I hate at&t and don't live in an area that they cover with LTE, I decided to go with the Verizon model. Not only that but I can use my iPad 3 as a wi-fi hotspot for free and the Verizon models are the only ones supporting this right now.

I haven't had a chance to really use my iPad 3 in my office or lab but I imagine it will be roughly the same as my iPad 2. Note taking, editing Word and Excel files, etc. I used my iPad 2 to give a final presentation in one of my classes and I would easily do the same with my iPad 3. Having LTE access means that I can keep up with other, more media related websites that the U.S. government doesn't want me accessing on their computers. I am not talking about adult material but rather Facebook, my personal and university e-mail accounts, etc.

Essentially an iPad allows me to actually do more than a traditional notebook. Having the ability to hand write notes and digitally store them is a huge key feature as I tend to lose notes over time. I can also surf the web through LTE, play the occasional game, read a report and add hand written annotations, read through a few books, and examine Excel files all on a device that takes up less space than the display on my 13" MBA and has enough juice to literally go all day without needing to be plugged in.

I think the iPad is a great accessory so long as you use it correctly. I have a friend that refuses to buy any tablet simply because he would only use it for movies and games, that is something he can already do on his smartphone. For him, tablets just aren't worth it even though he would like to be able to surf the internet anywhere in his house without being tied to his desktop (he doesn't have a notebook).

 

Hello Crashnburn,

I own an iPad (2) 16 GB WiFi, which I purchased last summer. While I admit that I am intriguied by the new 'Retina' display of the "new" iPad, I currently see no reason to upgrade. Since the iPad (2) is still being sold, support for it should continue. The "new" iPad has the same main processor as the iPad (2), so the only potential issue with software would be programs that need the faster GPU of the new model. However, the new model is pushing many more pixels, so I am still waiting to see how that pans out. We may discover that the "new" iPad is no faster than the iPad (2) in most cases, as it has to push more pixels, which makes the improvements moot. Granted, the display does look very nice.....

As far as WiFi vs 4G + WiFi, here is how I see it. I will not spend an extra $130 + an extra $10 per month for fixed data service. Right now, I use my HotSpot feature with my iPhone and $20 per month for 2GBs of data for my iPad (2). When I upgrade my phone (and I will, this year ), I will get a "free" speed upgrade for my iPad. Assuming the new iPhone does 4G LTE, my iPad will now have 4G. This is cheaper (for now anyway) and more flexable than buying an iPad with a fixed wireless option.

My iPad is used for web browsing, Kindle (for textbooks and occasional reading), digital magazines, and watching videos. I do not use it for music, and thus the 16GB model has seemed sufficiant. However, I would imagine that you should buy the largest size you can comfortably afford. For the price of upgrading to 4G, you could buy a 32 GB WiFi (and save a little to boot), which would prove more useful.

Good luck!

Rich S.

 

The A5X SoC in the iPad 3 isn't faster than the iPad 2. In fact, it still packs the exact same dual-core CPU. That means that apps will load at about the same speed. The main difference comes from the 1GB in RAM and quad-core graphics in that the iPad 3 can push out the extra pixels and detail (especially in games) that the iPad 2 can't. So it isn't really an increase in performance but rather an increase in graphics. That and the addition of 4G allows the iPad 3 to surf faster.

Even over wi-fi, my iPad 2 would only get about 15-20Mbps (despite me having a solid 40Mbps connection from my ISP) but my iPad 3 is able to reach the full 40Mbps without problems.

 

1. if you aren't using it to store your data, 16 GB could be enough for most, 32 GB would be pretty safe

2. if it was your only device, I might lean towards 32 GB / 64 GB, but honestly I wouldn't recommend an iPad at that point

3. if you're trying to generate content on the iPad, you're going to be wasting a lot of time unless you get an external keyboard at the very least. All of those types of content development mentioned are better suited to other types of devices.

4. jailbreaking is not a very clean solution - you have to avoid baseband updates if you get a 3G/4G model, and regular updates in either case. I wouldn't recommend jailbreaking. Also, if you feel the need to duct-tape a 1 TB hard drive to your iPad, you need to look at alternative technology options that are better suited to your needs. Duct-taping a hard drive to an iPad is not very practical nor is it entirely safe.

Jailbreaking was really big back in the day when multitasking wasn't built into the OS, and some other basic options were missing. iOS has matured a lot since then, and the practical need for jailbreaking keeps getting smaller.

 

Unless you have a really limited budget, don't get a 16GB.

I bought all 3 iteration of iPads when they were released. I bought the 16GB iPad 1, and for iPad 2 and 3, I bought the 32GB version.

Even on the iPad 1, 16 GB is really limited. First of all, apps take up space. Non-gaming apps are not that big, if you don't play games, your apps will take up around or less than 1GB space. That estimate is on iPad/iPad 2 sized app. Retina-display optimized apps are supposed to have higher resolution images, and could be noticeably bigger, depending on the nature of the apps. However, games are typically big in size. For example, Infinity Blade II is 791MB in size.

I remember having about 2-3GB of music on my iPad 1, a few 3D games, and a number of "regular-sized" apps. I had a 14-hour flight the next morning, and wanted to load a whole season of non-HD Big Bang Theory. My iPad 16GB didn't have enough space for it. Well, you don't put a whole season of TV show on your iPad all the time, but do keep in mind that a 1080p movie will be a few GB large.

64GB is too expensive IMO, and I don't really see myself needing that much storage, yet. 32GB seems to be the sweet spot for me so far.

 

You're better off tethering your iPad to your phone instead of getting 4g/3g models imo.

 

^ Now, you wish you had an android tablet with capability for SD cards as apple ain't gonna do it!

 

If you plan on download music, games, and books, I definitely recommend the 32GB model. Lots of the popular games use 500-1000MB.

 

I suppose it depends on what you want to do with it.

If you want to store video, that could be anywhere from 2.5-7.5 GB/hour for 1080p, or less for lower resolutions. Games might be huge for the iPad, as mentioned. I didn't really think about it, but it certainly could be. If there are 700 MB iPad 2 apps out now, I wouldn't be surprised to see 1.4-1.8GB apps for the iPad 3 soon. Maybe get whatever you can afford.

 

I would say it depends. Right now I have a Droid X, a 3G/EDGE only phone and Verizon would charge me an extra $20 a month to tether my iPad 3 to that while limiting my tethered data to 2GB. I don't think spending $20 a month is really beneficial especially at 3G speeds (which vary from 0.3-2.5Mbps). So instead, it made sense for me to spend $30 a month to access the same 2GB of data at speeds of 10-45Mbps.

Now, if I had an LTE capable phone, things might be different. I think I would still like the convenience of not having to rely on my phone each and every time I fired up my iPad to go online. Not only that but my iPad can be used as a wi-fi hotspot for free, I don't have to pay an extra monthly fee on top of the $30.

 

i went with 64GB this time (32 last time).

I like to carry a few movies around with me, and about 20GB of music in addition to the apps and photos, so the larger version makes sense for me. A person can be just fine with the 16GB if they purchase apps that eliminate the need to carry media.

Air Video can eliminate the need for converting and carrying films on your iPad if you use the iPad primarially at home (or anywhere with a wifi connection). Air Video will stream right to your pad over your network in wonderful HD.

StreamToMe can do the same, but with music and photos in addition to video. It can see your iTunes playlists and any folders you designate that it should have access to. These files and folders are also available remotely with a little configuration.

Having both of these programs ($7 total?) can virtually eliminate the need for you to put more than a few songs and a couple of videos on your pad, leaving the rest of the memory for photos and apps.

That said, I'd still probably recommend the 32GB version. Most apps have not been updated for Retina support, but those that are have seen significant growth in filesize. Over the lifetime of ownership, space may become an issue with the 16GB, even if you're constantly pruning. Certainly if you plan on shooting any video on the iPad, the 16GB is not a good choice. 1080p videos eats space like so many skittles.

Personally, I'd still recommend Air Video + StreamToMe with the 32GB version as the smallest...unless you know for sure you won't be interested in putting any media or recording videos on the pad. Then maybe you can get by with the 16GB version. Otherwise, 32 or 64 and don't look back.

 

I have a 16GB wifi iPad 1 and now a 16G wifi iPad 3. The screen won me over on the iPad 3.

As far as capacity goes, I mainly use my iPad for casual browsing, email and games. Most casual apps are 100MB or less, and the more developed games are starting to be 500MB-1GB. So if you want to load up, 16GB could be an issue.

If you really want to carry music and movies, I'd say 32GB becomes a necessity. I have a 32GB iPhone 4 (which I carry all the time since it's my primary phone), so I load all my music in that and only load a few "essential" playlists on my iPad. Movies (especially HD) will chew through several GB each. If you can live with SD, still figure about 1GB per movie. When I travel (business & leisure), I find I still can't live without my laptop, so I end up bringing both which offers me the flexibility to live with a 16GB iPad and swap out content as necessary.

 

You could root it.

And 3g speeds are a plenty. 45Mbps is highly unlikely given the current LTE rollout. 3g is pushing 3-5 Mbps (unless you're in a REALLY rural area, in which case you wouldn't even get 4g anyway), whereas 4g is sitting at 10-20 tops for most areas, assuming you even get coverage in the first place. 3g is still plenty for most things imo, without being the battery killer it is on current SoCs.

 

I am not going to root my phone and my speed numbers where from my personal experience. Where I work in both my office and lab, my 3G phone obtains a speed of 0.3Mbps whereas my iPad 3 (connected to Verizon's LTE network) gets 10Mbps. That is a huge difference. Additionally, when I travel up to the 7th floor (or really anything above the ground floor, which is somewhat under the actual ground level), my Droid X is able to get 2.5Mbps while my iPad 3 has 29Mbps. When I go home, my Droid X still tops out at about 2.5Mbps while my iPad 3 gets 45Mbps.

So there is a huge difference between 3G and LTE where I live and where I work. It is a difference enough for me to get the iPad 3 with built-in LTE as I still have a long wait (7 months) before I can upgrade my Droid X. So even if I rooted it, I would still be stuck with 3G speeds and with the iPad 3 and LTE, its like I am at home connected to my personal wi-fi network. I downloaded an entire album through the iTunes Store (about 145MB) and it took only a couple of minutes (as in 2-3) for the download to finish on my iPad 3. That would have taken a lot longer using my Droid X as a hotspot. So no, 3G speeds aren't plenty when you have easy access to a much, much faster network.

Now, if I didn't live in an LTE covered area, things might be different. As it stands though, even back home in southern NM, it is LTE covered. Verizon's market is a lot larger than at&t. I definitely would not have picked up an LTE at&t iPad 3 as Cincinnati (where I currently live and work) isn't even covered, it is just "4G" (or what at&t calls HSPA+).

Either way, there are some circumstances (such as mine) where picking up the LTE model was a smarter move. I likely still would have picked up an LTE capable iPad 3 even if I had an LTE smartphone simply because I don't want to have to rely on my smartphone for going online all the time. That is a battery that will drain rapidly and I would rather just use my iPad when I want to go online with my iPad. The extra $30 per month is $10 more than what carriers are charging to use their smartphones as hotspots anyway. Not only that but under Verizon, the iPad 3 can be used as a hotspot for free.

 

That's really weird that you get literally 2g speeds on a 3g phone. Are you sure you're not throttled? I would call in and see how far you get with complaining to customer service.

Again, rooting it and flashing a different modem might help with that too.

I just can't fathom really any point in time where I would have a tablet but not my phone. And I'm 100% sure there are connectors from Apple's 30-pin to a micro USB so you could share some of that 12000mah goodness to your phone.

Also, all top tier data plans come with free tether on all of the major carriers IIRC. Again, tethering is also free if you just root it and get what the manufacturers originally intended on your phones anyway.

 

Well I can tell you as somebody that just bought their new iPad today that I bought the 16 gig version and so far I have three pages worth of games and various apps and I've used 4 gigs of memory. I've got two weeks to decide if I want to bring it back and upgrad to one with more memory. I recommend you buy yours from the Apple store and get the 16 and see if you need to do the same after two weeks.

 

The problem with storage is definitely gonna come from Apple's app software. The problem is that so many consumers look and want for a universal app, that's to say, an iPad version, an iPhone version, an HD version, and now a super HD version. And the way iOS apps function is that the only way for publishers to release "universal" apps is to literally include all 4 versions in one. If you're a 3gs user, you're literally making use of maybe 100mb of that 1gb file. And files are only gonna get bigger given 4x the pixels.

 

Some applications have a mechanism in the application itself that can download the content of the application separately from the app store download. This can be convenient because it can bypass the ~20 MB limit for downloading applications over 3G, and also because redundant or excess data relating to the differences in device resolutions can be dynamically avoided.

 

I definitely am not throttled. I have Verizon's unlimited data plan and consume about 2-2.5GB of data a month. My speeds are actually better than people who live in New York or other major cities through Verizon.

That's not going to happen. I refuse to root my phone or even jailbreak one of my iDevices.

Free USB tethering maybe (although I don't see it in my Verizon statement and I have their top tier unlimited data plan, before they began capping people) but not wi-fi or bluetooth. They still charge for wi-fi and bluetooth tethers, something that the iPad 3 does for free with a data plan. I do have an app on my phone that lets me tether its data connection to my Mac via USB but it won't work with my iPad 3 simply because my iPad doesn't have the necessary drivers for my phone and it wouldn't look through the dock connector for an internet connection. Either way, if I am going to pay an extra fee so that my phone can become a wi-fi hotspot, I might as well put it towards my iPad 3 so that I can get a much faster connection on a device with a larger display and longer battery life.

Its not that I will be in places with my iPad and without my Droid, I just don't have to have to incessantly have to rely on my Droid every time I want to read an e-mail on my iPad or just surf the internet. Doing so would drain my Droid's battery rather quickly (I had a free month of the wi-fi hotspot feature, my Droid was able to go for about 2 hours before being drained) and I would still be in 3G land. Yes, I could root my phone but I am not going to run anything but the stock firmware as I have a warranty with my phone that covers accidental damage. If I were to ever accidentally break it, my warranty would be null and void if I rooted my phone.

 

I was originally planning on purchasing this but then got on the fence when they didn’t announce a “quad-core” processor. That was one of the two features along with the “Retina Display” that I said would definitely get me to purchase one. I have to have hands on session with one but if the Display is as good as they say I may purchase one. My thinking now regarding the quad-core processor is I don’t think I really need it anyway. I am only planning on using it mainly for browsing the internet and doing a few other things the dual-core is most likely good enough (maybe more than good enough) I did have a hand’s on session with the IPAD 2 last year and that seemed fast enough for me.

Question – How much of a con is it not to have flash on an IPAD? Is that really a big issue? I know why it doesn’t have flash and know about what Steve jobs said and all that.

I know it does use HTML 5 and from the last I heard 75% (or more now) of the websites uses that now correct?

Also, I think there is a way to view flash on an IPAD correct? Some app or something I am not sure.

The other thing is should I get the wifi version or the 4G version? If I get the wifi version are the video’s going to be breaking up stopping and starting?

FYI – I have never owned an apple product

 

i believe it is the boat browser that allows flash?

 

Thanks for your response

 

1. Realistically, on a (relatively) low power device like a tablet, no flash is better than flash. This is not a con at all, but you'll get a variety of answers depending on who you ask.

2. Yes, most websites that host consumer content do so in a way that it can be viewed on an iDevices without any workarounds.

3. Yes, there are workarounds for viewing flash content on an iPad. There are a few apps that you can use which are like normal browsers, but when they encounter flash videos, those videos are processed on an external web server and streamed to your iPad in the proper format. One of those apps leverages your own desktop computer as the server, another does the processing in the cloud but is slightly less compatible.

 

Thanks for your reply

 

iOS is lightly threaded anyway. You'll get benchmark increases, but probably no real good use out of 4 cores vs 2. I'd rather get a higher clocked dual core/A15 architecture dual core than quad A9s.

1. I don't agree with having flash being a con. How does having access to something, no matter how slow/outdated the technology is, a CON? It's up to the user whether he/she makes use of it, but it being there and accessible is infinitely better than it not existing at all. From a consumer standpoint at least.

From a different perspective, e.g. that of someone wanting to see technology progress (aka wanting to kill off flash for the infinitely superior HTML5) then yeah it makes sense. But otherwise, it's a con, not really even debatable tbh.

It's like saying a PS3 with backwards compatibility is inferior to a PS3 without. What? To Sony... it does in some aspects. If per say, they wanted to get more PS2 sales. To the consumer, that NEVER makes sense.

2. Skyfire or something offers a "work around", but not really. Your best bet is probably getting a RDP app and streaming flash stuff straight from your own PC.

 

I was going to bring up that the majority of apps are still only single threaded and don't even take advantage of the A5 in the iPad 2. There are some floating around there (Infinity Blade II might be one) but most other apps still use a single core from the A5 as they are also developed to run on the A4 from the iPad 1. Going up to quad-core would help reduce load times (as did the iPad 2) but that is about it for now. A game or two would take advantage of having the two extra cores but everyday apps wouldn't and even the common games (Angry Birds, Words With Friends, Cut The Rope, etc.) would still be stuck in one-core land.

I also have to agree with chef when it comes to Flash content on a mobile device. Part of me thinks that the consumers should be able to decide what they want to do with their devices. Then I fire up a Flash heavy website on my Droid X only to see the battery drain by 10% by displaying the content of the page for only a few minutes. I then go over to my iPad 3 (same with my older iPad 1 or iPad 2), fire up the same page that has been ported over to HTML 5, and see the battery life on it not change. I even have my phone go to the HTML 5 version of the page and the battery life doesn't take a hit.

The biggest issue are websites that still heavily rely on Flash and have no intentions of switching over to HTML 5. Luckily they released some apps to take care of that. Hulu has its own app and so does Netflix though I think Netflix uses Silverlight. Either way, you have to go through some workaround to get Flash content on an iOS device if the website (or service) doesn't offer an HTML 5 interface or their own app.

 

If you have flash active, then any time you access a website with flash, you'll have to deal with the website chugging and churning through the battery. You'll also have a constant serious security threat gateway.

If flash could be toggled on and off, that might be *okay*- but then users (and developers) would not be strongly motivated to jump ship for anything better. You can't have one without the other. At this point, that has largely already happened over the past few years, and the overwhelming majority of content can be accessed on the web and/or through a dedicated application. Anyone who has content important enough for you to view it has realized they need to make it available on iDevices at some point over the past several years, and has done so.

Plus, if you're having to toggle flash on and off all the time, you're now spending your time and mental effort toggling flash on and off. The experience of browsing the web is better if it's content driven and not constant-manual-browser-management driven. Of course, you could just leave it off, but then- why include it?

If having access to something is automatically better than not having it in all cases, then we might as well also get a Java runtime, silverlight, shockwave, realplayer, internet explorer mode (some sites won't work even on desktop safari).

The simple fact is that these features aren't desirable on low-power mobile devices. Including them contributes to bloat, increases the install size of the OS leaving you with less space, pulls development time away from other technologies which are more relevant, all for the end result of working poorly if you actually want to attempt to use it.

Plus, Adobe has deprecated flash on all mobile devices, including android.

 

Thanks I appreciate the reponses!

 

Again, I don't see how having access to flash is detrimental. Literally, the only thing Android needs to patch up (and technically has) is to set browsers to use HTML5 on default. And ironically, most third party browsers DO have that built in already, with Flash as an option.

You're not really putting in that much effort tbh, flipping a switch on and off. Literally, if a site is Flash only, it'll ask for a Flash player. Then you turn it on for that site. You either "choose" to have access to the file/website, or no access to it at all. Isn't having the choice to access a bit of information better than not?

Supporting flash is honestly one of the furthest things away from bloat, and contributes a negligible size to the OS install. It's also a stagnant bit of technology, and one of the easiest to "implement".

Flash is different from all the other troll technologies (except for a few!) being that it was literally a dominant piece of technology. It's the PS2 in today's PS3. Outdated, old, slower, sure, but nice to have. I don't see how it's comparable to silverlight lol.

This really isn't an HTML5 vs Flash debate as much as it is Flash vs nothing.

EDIT: Also, we are so far off topic. To bring it back a little bit.

I just got my hands on the iPad 3 as a gift from the gf, and I daresay that screen is stunning. I bought the iPad 2 for my parents, so I do have a first hand long term play with either. I wholly believe the screen alone is worth the upgrade, seeing that it's literally the only thing you're interacting the whole time.

I can't say the A5X chip is faster than the A5 on any account with it driving 4x the pixels with 2x the power. But it is plenty fast enough, and snappier than anything on Android (coming from an Android fan, you'll see me lining up for the Galaxy S3 release).

I haven't touched the "improved" 5mp camera yet, and I don't think I ever will. It's a real shame Apple couldn't flip that thing 180 degrees and use it as a front facing one. What kind of tool captures magical moments with a 12 inch device?

One thing that puzzles me though, is the fact that Apple literally brought about a 70% increase in battery capacity, and yet brought 0 improvements to the battery life of wi-fi models? The A5X is only using marginally more juice than the A5. It's hard to believe that retina display alone is responsible for a 60% increase in battery consumption.

However, 9 hours of 4g is absolutely stunning. Phones generally pull 3ish, 6ish with the Razr Maxx.

As far as storage is concerned, I've finished syncing over most of my apps (and I'm a heavy user: DD2, Infinity Blade, Fifa 12, Real Racing 2 HD, the whole shabang) and I've been sitting pretty at about 8gb. I don't plan on using it for music at all though, but I can see myself watching the occasional movie. I'm actually dying to see how 1080p looks on this thing, since it would have to UPSCALE the full HD movie. However, it's more of a curiosity thing, I don't plan on using my iPad to get the most out of my 1080p experience. If I do watch a video, it'll probably be just that: a short video, probably streamed. "Casual entertainment" is the key, not hardcore entertainment.

All in all, I think 16gb is definitely cutting it close, and I might opt for a 32gb model should apps really start pushing file size limits as things hit "HD HD" instead of just "HD". However, apps would be the only reason I'd be considering an upgrade (chances are, it won't happen as I still have another 6 gb to blow through).

But by God is that screen amazing!

 

I already explained why having flash isn't desirable on this type of device.

1. security issues. stability issues.
2. waste of user time, having to manage whether the flash runtime is loaded or not
3. waste of effort which could go into developing other systems
4. flash is deprecated on all mobiles, including android
5. content availability is high without flash, and it's only getting better (18 months ago, this was slightly less true, but it was already taking off)
6. what you actually get after dealing with 1-5 is a low performance and high battery life cost solution. just because flash runs, doesn't mean it's going to run well. it's a waste of time to deal with technologies that aren't practical for the device in question. it's a better use of your time to use the alternatives that content owners have already provided in the form of native apps and h264 based video.

---

The problem is that your mental framework for approaching OS design (that you've stated publicly) is that more > less just by form. That type of thinking leads to bloat.

---

As far as the battery situation, the retina display does take a huge amount of power. LCD screens are pretty power hungry in the first place for portable electronics. The also had to add extra back-lighting to the display to get the same brightness. The thing is, as you increase resolution, the screen becomes more opaque, because there is literally more stuff in the way of the light. You've got the LCD grid and components between your eye and the light, and when you double the resolution in both directions, you dramatically reduce the amount of light that can penetrate the screen. The solution they came up with was to add more intense, higher power lights. The panel electronics themselves might also draw more power, just because you have to send electricity to change the state of 4x more liquid crystals.

 

well said, masterchief.

one thing new iPad owners always notice early on: no flash = smooth videos on YouTube and their other websites. such a beautiful thing.

 

right.

you COULD build in flash, and use it to browse youtube.

you would have to accept the security concerns, stability concerns, high battery life cost... probably would manually have to activate and deactivate flash, and then you'd end up with choppy video. Total waste of time.

OR you could just use the native youtube app or the browser and point it to youtube and watch videos properly, smoothly, and minimal battery life costs.

Same story with other flash content. You could either watch the flash content and have a terrible experience, or you could watch the same content without flash using modern standards, and have a good experience.

Pretty much all important flash content you can access on the iOS because the content developers provide a native version.

Of the marginal leftovers, most of that you wouldn't be able to access directly on iOS anyway. Sites like hulu block android devices from access hulu content directly on the site even if they have the flash player installed.

It truly is better to leave it out.

 

It may not have a large footprint in an OS but Flash itself is bloated beyond recognition. Have you ever accessed Flash sites on an Android handset or even an Android tablet? It isn't a fun experience that lags and most videos of any quality (ie ones above 360p) don't playback smoothly. Why even bother implementing something if it isn't going to be a smoth experience? Might as well not have it in mobile devices. Not having Fash on iOS is like complaining that developers are not including a free copy of Crysis 2 with the Nintendo 3DS. That console would never be able to do the game justice but it hurts the consumer by not having that choice.

Yeah, I'm not buying it. Things would be different if Adobe actually optimized their code over time instead of just building on buggy release after buggy release. Their ARM optimization is anything but and even Adobe said that they are abandoning Flash on mobile devices. So why should anyone focus on implementing technology in their mobile device when they company behind said technology isn't even going to focus on providing that proper support? Is it just to give the consumer a choice in that they can have a subpar experience that will drain the battery of their device? Well sure, it's the consumer's device, they should have the choice! No, I don't see it that way. Consumers also have the choice to throw their tablets/phones off the top of the Empire State building yet there are laws prohibiting people from throwing crap off of that building. You don't see people complaining about not being able to do that with their devices. I am sure people soul would get more entertainment watching an iPad plummet to its death than view Flash heavy websites that act buggy, drain its battery, and don't even play smoothly.

 

I actually went the opposite direction from most of the posters in this thread--started with 64GB iPad 1, moved to 32GB iPad 2, and now I'm using a 16GB iPad (3rd gen).

As more and more media services move to the cloud, I really haven't found a use for all that space. Right now it's sitting there with 11GB still free, and I can't really think of anything else I would put in it to fill that. (Admittedly I rarely use the thing, so maybe people who use their ipads more often will have some use for all that space).

iCloud takes care of all my music requirements (since the poor audio quality of listening to music in public makes lossless pointless).

Netflix, Plex, etc. take care of any streaming video needs. If I need to save the occasional video, there's more than enough room for that too with 16GB.

Games do take up some room, but I never have that many installed all at once anyway.

Books hardly take up any space, and can be cloud synced at any rate, and I don't really use the iPad to read my ebooks.

And documents can be cloud synced as well - you have dropbox, icloud, etc.

There are a few dictionaries or other reference apps that take significant space--but I doubt many people will have more than 2-4 of those at once.

 

I have only been able to use flash to some effect to watch a tv show on a site by using the dolphin browser. Perhaps, my samsung captivate doesn't have enough resources as I would be able to visit those sites using a toshiba thrive, but opera and firefox on android haven't worked. I do like the simplicity of the iOS and its stability (have used touch so I guess iphone doesn't crash that often as well?), but not having flash DOES have a con.


As for the empire state building example, the reason you would be disallowed to do so is more so to do with the fact that you might actually hurt someone who might be walking at that moment down there. Someone also has to come pickup after yourself (trash it) and that is "work" as well. I don't know how that applies to an iphone / ipad etc.

Yes, I know that people have a choice that they can get android to use flash, but why is there this pc vs. mac war when like mac users have made their decision and don't have to berate pc's anymore?


As for the storage question, it is all about Apple making money. This whole deal about sd cards or ubs drives introducing viruses is moot since now you have flash drives that connect to the connector at the bottom for ipod touches / iphones. What was so broken that apple couldn't introduce micro SD for touches or SD card / USB for ipads? There is one more reason to dislike Steve Job's personality as he did have a lot of input in developing the iOS devices.

 

As far as the first point, the question is: why do you think it is a con? Do you think it is a con because the benefits of having access to a deprecated flash runtime outweigh the negatives (barely usable, very few cases where you could actually view content that isn't easily accessible natively anyway, etc), or that having access to flash is better on principal?

If you think the former, then I would say that I am happy to disagree, and we just ascribe value differently.
If you believe the latter, I would say you need to reevaluate your design principals.

As for the second point, I mostly agree. Nearly all of Apple's iPad lineup is based on Apple selling you overpriced flash storage. You can get class 10 flash storage for about $1/GB. Apple charges $6.25/GB if you take the $100 upgrade to 32GB. They charge $4.17/GB for the $200 upgrade to 64GB.

If users would be willing to use flash storage as permanent expansion storage and not expect hot-swap functionality (no swapping unless you do a restore), it would be extremely easy to implement.

The only other factor is that users would need to make sure they bought high performance flash, and it might be a little clunky to insert it. It would need to be seated in there in such a way that it wasn't extremely easy to remove, so users don't randomly remove it. This isn't a huge problem, it's sort of like the sim card.

Lossless audio isn't necessary even for high quality listening in a quiet environment. You just need a good lossy codec, encoder, and a sufficient bitrate. Lossless is necessary for proper archival.

I believe Apple uses 256kbps aac with an extremely high quality (proprietary) encoder. That's more than enough for any listening environment and any setup. -v0 with lame 3.98 (mp3) would also be sufficient for any sound if the goal is to listen to it (rather than say, graphically analyze it)

 

Verizon blocks even rooted tethering now. I used to get free tethering by rooting my droid phones and then downloading some tether app like barnacle, etc. But ever since late last year, even when rooted, any webpage while tethered takes you to Verizon's webpage asking if you'd like to purchase their hotspot tether.

I tried about a month ago and finally gave up... maybe somethings changed recently to get around it? I'm still rooted though because there are other advantages.

 

I don't see the how having flash as an option is a con still. Everything you have listed makes a whole bunch of assumptions, most of which I don't think hold much water.

Security - if you know what you're doing, you have nothing to fear.

Waste of user time - again, it's an OPTION. You don't have to mess around with it if you don't want to.

Waste of effort - wait what? The amount of effort put into implementing Flash is... well, negligible. I don't see how that's arguable.

Flash is deprecated - okay, so what? As a tech, it's outdated. But do flash only content exist? You betcha. Plenty of live streams are flash only.

HTML5 content is only increasing - alright, but how does that affect having flash again? Seems to overlap with the last one.

Security risks are a joke argument tbh, this is an advanced feature, and if you're honestly technical enough to look into work arounds into getting flash on your device (instead of the vast majority of those accepting that "things just don't work"), you probably won't have to worry about the security issues.

Flash is horrendously inefficient, it's dead and obsolete, and it poses "potential" security risks. Yes to all of those things. That doesn't change the fact that there exist much desirable content that is only available in flash. If the user wants access to said content, then having flash is infinitely better than not having flash, can we agree on that point at least?

If you don't ever need access to flash content, then by all the willy nillys in the world, flash is a murderer of children in terms of technology.

Yes, I have accessed flash sites on an android device (who hasn't), and I've streamed flash content. The experience isn't desirable, flash streams are never 1080p/720p quality, they're blurry, they're bloated, and probably full of ads/AIDs. And still, the experience of having that option is still infinitely better than not having it.

Would access to flash result in a whole slew of user backlash with complaints on performance? Probably. Apple is all about the user experience, the flash user experience, even on a quad core mbp is lackluster. I agree it makes sense from Apple's perspective to get rid of it, but from an educated consumer's perspective, one that's well aware of flash's shortcomings, I'd like to have the option. That's all.

Now, HAVING SAID THAT, has anyone run into issues with their smart cover not working properly for the iPad 3? e.g. not turning off when it's covered, and turning on when it's not?

 

Well, you might actually hurt your mobile device by running Flash. It slows everything down, it makes them produce excess heat, and the experience is just awful. My point is that there are a million things you can and can't do with mobile devices (iOS, Blackberry, Android, Windows Mobile) yet people complain the loudest that iOS doesn't have Flash when it isn't a smooth experience on Android, Blackberry doesn't support it (and hasn't supported it for a while), and I don't think Windows Mobile supports it yet either (and likely won't). I am sure there have been people complaining about that but the loudest voices are those for iOS.

I guess the Android user base is perfectly happy having all that glorious Flash content out there being played back to them at 12 FPS and causing their devices to turn into stuttering sources of heat.

 

^ I can agree with you about smart phone where battery life is an issue , but when you go into tablet territory then I think flash should be allowed. Unlike a smart phone, a tablet is a purely entertainment device and if a toshiba thrive could support flash without many hickups, then so can an iPad!

 

I have yet to come across an Android tablet that could smoothly playback anything other than 360p/480p Flash videos. Granted, I have only had experience with a Xoom 2 and Galaxy Tab 10 but things weren't silky smooth on either one. I tried loading a 720p Fash video and it wouldn't playback smoothly. Even sites such as IGN caused some hiccups. Even then the batteries of each tablet drastically drained during the experience. The Xoom's battery life decreased by 20% in a 30 minute browsing period with Flash heavy content, the Samsung was pretty much the same.

So again, what's the point of having Fash on an entertainment device if it isn't going to be entertaining and will drain the battery of these devices? Furthermore, what's the point of offering Flash if Adobe themselves are backing out of mobile support?

 

You won't get silky smooth playback, I don't get it even with my Galaxy S2. In some cases it's the fault of the stream/source, in other cases, your hardware simply isn't enough. But you'll get something. That's the point.

And 20% in 30 minutes is a stretch. It's closer to 10% per half hour.

The point of flash? You're still getting access to these content where you otherwise wouldn't.

So what if adobe isn't supporting it? Until websites are 100% flash free, there's always a use for it.

EDIT: Just tried some flash viewing on the old Nexus One. Not particularly pleasant. Still worth having. But on the S2, it's a tolerable even enjoyable (in the sense you get access to something you otherwise wouldn't) experience.

 

Agreed.

The nice thing is that there are fewer and fewer non-niche sites that don't work without flash anymore.

all the major streaming websites (justin.tv, livestream, ustream, twitch, youtube) all work. all major sports and entertainment websites that I can think of to try all work (or have a convenient app to use). I'm sure there are still some smaller, niche sites that remain dependent on Flash, as well as some foreign sites...but in the next 12 months, I expect the flash requirement for any and all moderately significant websites to be gone, providing a flash-free alternative.

 

I don't think that's 100% the story. If you've ever used any LTE device, even with a tablet sized screen, you're still looking at a significant portion of the battery going towards powering the radio. For phones, LTE vs wifi is EASILY twice the battery life. So unless Apple developed a new revolutionary LTE radio that sips, there's definitely more to it. 9 hours with LTE sounds about right, 10 hours with wifi sounds very off.

I can't find an iPad 3 wifi tear down... anyone?

Also can't find any Galaxy Tab LTE battery tests either...

EDIT: Never mind, displaymate.com had everything on there. 0.42w for an iPhone 4 screen, 7w for the iPad 3. Jesus.

 

What do you mean "thats the point"? That is what myself and others have argued but it is shot down continually saying "it is still better to have it" without any concrete reasoning. Many examples of bad Flash experiences on mobile platforms have been given yet the responses have essentially been "because" without much reasoning.

I didn't pull those battery life numbers out of my , the Xoom 2 really did drain by 20% in half an hour and the Samsung was right around there (maybe 17 or 18%) in the same timeframe. It might be different for other tablets running different versions of Android. I don't know. Either way, that means that a tablet's battery can be cut in half with about 90 minutes of internet browsing. Yep, that is exactly what I want out of my tablet experience: having to plug it in every few hours just as I would a big 17" gaming notebook.
The point of flash? You're still getting access to these content where you otherwise wouldn't.

As per Adobe not supporting it, websites keep adding more and more features through Flash but Adobe isn't optimizing their code for Android. That means that websites are going to continue to evolve but Android will be stuck running outdated code that will further degrade the performance and eat away at the battery.

So why is it still worth having when the experience is crap? "Just because" is not a proper answer. There are plenty of reasons to not have Flash on iOS and they have been laid out pretty clearly. So far, the only reason to put it on Android seems to be "just to have access" even though that access is nothing more than a crap experience.

Either way, the point of this thread was not to discuss the (lack of) merits that Flash has on mobile platforms. The OP wanted to know what iPad configuration they should purchase. I think we can stop discussing the (3984579832475 negative and one positive) experiences of running Flash on Android since it has been discussed to death already.

Edit:

According to an Apple Store employee, the wi-fi iPad is the same exact configuration as the LTE models just without the LTE/EDGE/3G/wireless options. Don't forget that the display in the iPad 3 is going to be the biggest consumer of power. The increase in resolution not only requires more processing power to handle but Apple (Samsung) had to drastically increase the backlight of the display. When pixels are that packed together, they will form a dense image making it much harder to light to shine through. Apple had to increase the backlight system of the display just so it could maintain the same brightness levels of the iPad 2. All-in-all, I think the display is the biggest battery hog in the iPad 3 and the LTE radio might come in second (at least when the A5X isn't being stressed).

 

How is "You're still getting access to these content where you otherwise wouldn't" not concrete? Seems to be about as concrete as it gets.

Whereas arguments from the otherside are less concrete if anything. How about I make the decision whether or not the experience is "tolerable"? Seems an opinionated thing, no? I find flash browsing in a pinch to be more than bearable, even enjoyable once the stream gets going. Who are you to tell me it's not?

The simple facts: flash content still exists. If you want access to this content, you need a flash-enabled device. If you don't have one, you need another means to access this content, or you simply can't access it at all.

A lot of negatives, a single positive. But a VERY VERY SIGNIFICANT POSITIVE, in fact, the only positive that really matters.

If I wanted an education on some matter, and if it involved piecing together hundreds of pages of broken English, that's still infinitely better than NOT having access and therefore NOT fulfilling my educating needs.

 

But it's nowhere near that simple.

Virtually all content from any relevant websites in 2012 offer access to that same content without flash. It's concrete. It's demonstrably true.

If you would like to have an even more concrete discussion, you should name all the relevant sites you can think of that don't work on iOS devices. That is the context that is important here. If people know that Livestream, Ustream, Youtube, Vimeo, Twitch.tv, Justin.tv, CNN, MSNBC, Fox News, Yahoo News, Autoblog, Engadget, Verge, Gizmodo, etc. etc. etc. all offer their video and streaming services WITHOUT A NEED FOR FLASH...then what relevant websites are we talking about that make Flash so worth keeping on mobile devices?

The internet will be/is a better place without such reliance on Flash in the same way that it was better when Firefox, Safari, Chrome and others forced the internet to back off of reliance on ActiveX plug-ins.

 

Without going into specifics, for me personally: European sports streams. Every sky sports stream I could find turned out to be flash only.

If you have an HTML5 alternative, I'm more than happy to hear it. Barcelona vs Milan's coming up; Champion's League in its quarter-final stages.

 

I'll see what I can turn up for you.

I've never really done the sports streaming thing before. Usually because the unofficial websites always seemed so shady. But If there's money to be made, those services would be foolish to not make their offerings flash-free.