5 Reasons the New iPad Sucks - A Critical Review

The iPad 3: A Critical Look at Apple's Latest Tablet

On March 7th, Apple officially presented its newest devices, garnering extensive attention across the internet. This launch introduced "the new iPad," formally known as the "iPad (third-generation)," though it’s widely recognized as the iPad 3.

Initial Reactions and Areas of Concern

The unveiling sparked considerable excitement among dedicated Apple enthusiasts. However, not all observers shared this enthusiasm. The following outlines five key reasons why the iPad 3 falls short of expectations.

Five Reasons for Disappointment

Several aspects of the iPad 3 have drawn criticism. These concerns were highlighted even before considering omissions like haptic feedback, stylus compatibility, and the absence of SD and USB ports.

• Retina Display – A Questionable Necessity: While the Retina display is visually impressive, its benefits are debatable for typical tablet usage.
• 4G LTE – Limited Availability: The inclusion of 4G LTE is hampered by its restricted network coverage.
• A5X Chip – Incremental Improvement: The A5X processor offers only a modest performance boost over its predecessor.
• Price Point – Remains High: The iPad 3 maintains a premium price, potentially deterring budget-conscious consumers.
• Software Limitations – iOS Still Lacks: Despite hardware upgrades, the underlying iOS operating system continues to exhibit limitations.

These points were also brought to light by readers of MakeUseOf in a recent discussion, further emphasizing areas where the iPad 3 could have been improved.

The absence of a smaller iPad model was another frequently voiced desire among potential buyers, a feature that Apple did not address with this release.

The New iPad (iPad 3)

The latest iPad, often referred to as the iPad 3, was unveiled on March 7th. By the time this is read, it is anticipated to be available for purchase in retail locations. However, it’s probable that only placeholders will remain, as the initial stock is likely to be depleted quickly.

Whether my lack of enthusiasm is justified, or if it simply reflects a sufficient number of consumers eager to spend a considerable sum on a modest improvement, is a matter of perspective. I welcome your thoughts on this in the comments section below.

Reasons for Disappointment

Despite the hype, several factors contribute to a less-than-impressive assessment of the iPad 3. These concerns, detailed below, highlight areas where the device falls short of expectations.

• The Retina Display: While visually appealing, the increased resolution is arguably unnecessary for a device of this size.
• Incremental Upgrade: The changes introduced are largely evolutionary rather than revolutionary.
• Price Point: The cost remains a significant barrier to entry for many potential buyers.

The core issue isn't that the iPad 3 is a bad product. It’s that the advancements offered don’t sufficiently justify the expense for many users. A more substantial leap forward was anticipated.

Ultimately, the value proposition of the iPad 3 is questionable, especially when considering the alternatives available in the tablet market.

1. The Naming Convention

The significance of a product's name is often underestimated. However, this appears not to be the case for everyday consumers who may experience bewilderment due to the omission of the numeral '3'. Previously, Apple designated its tablets as 'the iPad,' 'the iPad 2,' and 'the iPad 3'. This practice has been discontinued, which is considered a drawback.

Currently, the iPad 3 is marketed on Apple’s official website as "the new iPad," a designation that is anticipated to contribute to consumer uncertainty. The potential for future confusion arises with the expected release of the iPad 4 next year.

Will the iPad 4 be branded as "the new new iPad?" Alternatively, could "the new iPad" designation simply be carried over, thereby labeling the iPad 3 as "the old iPad?" Even articulating this scenario leads to perplexity. Consequently, it is reasonable to assume that the average consumer, lacking specialized technical knowledge, will find the situation equally disorienting.

This deliberate ambiguity arguably benefits Apple, potentially driving increased sales of the newest iPad model. The desire to possess "the new iPad" each year may prove irresistible to many dedicated Apple enthusiasts.

2. The Price

The iPad’s pricing structure has demonstrated remarkable stability over time. The entry-level model, featuring 16GB of storage and Wi-Fi connectivity, continues to be offered at $499, while upgraded configurations command significantly higher prices.

Proponents of Apple often justify this cost by highlighting the inclusion of innovative features and enhancements to the device’s hardware. However, this perspective overlooks the potential for cost reductions in materials and manufacturing processes, which could have facilitated a price decrease.

Profit Margins

Despite the introduction of components like the Retina Display, Apple’s profit margin has experienced a slight decrease, estimated at approximately 6 percent. Nevertheless, the company still realizes a substantial profit of around 51 percent on each iPad 3 sold.

This level of profitability raises the question of whether a price reduction would be feasible. A decrease in the profit margin from 50 percent to, for instance, 25 percent might be acceptable, especially considering Apple’s considerable valuation of $500 billion.

Lowering the price could broaden the iPad’s accessibility to a wider consumer base. The potential loss in profit, while significant, may be offset by increased sales volume and market share.

Ultimately, the decision to maintain the current pricing strategy appears to prioritize profit maximization over increased market penetration.

Increased Dimensions and Weight

As illustrated in the accompanying image, the iPad 3 exhibits a noticeable increase in both thickness and weight when contrasted with the earlier iPad 2.

Specifically, the device has become more substantial in its physical dimensions. The thickness has grown from 8.8mm to 9.4mm, and the weight has risen from 600g to 652g.

Subtle but Noticeable Changes

While the difference in thickness may not be readily apparent to all users, the added weight is likely to be perceived.

A key expectation for evolving technology is a trend towards miniaturization and reduced weight. Therefore, this increase appears counterintuitive.

Compatibility Concerns and Costs

The altered dimensions introduce a practical issue for existing iPad owners. Some cases designed for the iPad 2 will no longer be compatible with the new iPad 3.

This design choice potentially necessitates additional expenditure for consumers who wish to continue using a protective case. It represents a further cost beyond the initial purchase price of the device.

4. The Absence of Siri on iPad

Currently, the iPad does not feature the Siri virtual assistant. Instead, users are limited to basic voice dictation functionality. This limited capability falls short of the more comprehensive experience offered by Siri.

The inclusion of Siri on the iPad 3 was widely anticipated, yet Apple made the decision not to integrate it. Some Apple enthusiasts suggest server capacity limitations as the reason. However, this explanation is considered inaccurate.

Hardware Capabilities

The iPad 3 possesses sufficient hardware to effectively run Siri. Even earlier iPhone models can be modified to support Siri’s operation. This demonstrates that hardware isn't the limiting factor.

A primary motivation behind Apple’s decision to exclude Siri from the iPad appears to be strategic. The intention was likely to maintain a unique selling point for the iPhone 4S.

Maintaining iPhone Exclusivity

The key differentiator between the iPhone 4S and the iPhone 4 was, and remains, Siri. Offering Siri on the iPad 3 would diminish the iPhone 4S’s exclusive appeal.

By restricting Siri to the iPhone 4S, Apple aimed to incentivize consumers to choose the newer iPhone model. This strategy protected the value proposition of the iPhone 4S in the marketplace.

A Further Iteration and Assessment

We now arrive at the primary justification for the criticisms leveled against the iPad 3: the advancements offered are not substantial when compared to its predecessor, the iPad 2.

The Retina Display represents the most significant upgrade in this hardware revision. Additional features, however, offer limited value.

Examining the Incremental Changes

A revised rear-facing camera is largely unnecessary for many users. The inclusion of 4G LTE connectivity is currently most beneficial only within the United States.

A marginally improved CPU provides a negligible performance boost. These constitute the totality of the notable changes.

This release embodies another incremental update characteristic of Apple’s product cycle. Notably, the scale of these improvements appears to be diminishing over time.

Looking Ahead

It is foreseeable that, within the next ten years, Apple may promote minor alterations as groundbreaking advancements.

The company’s dedicated customer base, deeply invested in the brand, will likely accept and finance these seemingly insignificant upgrades. Their loyalty may lead them to embrace even the smallest of changes as revolutionary.

Final Thoughts

It is my assessment that Apple’s iPad 3 represents a product with a cost that exceeds its delivered value, and a lack of substantial innovation. Furthermore, the decision to avoid numerical designation – eschewing the “iPad 3” title – appears arbitrary.

This is not to suggest the iPad 3 is inherently flawed. It likely remains the leading tablet currently available, even considering the emergence of compelling Android-based competitors. However, Apple seemingly prioritized minimal changes sufficient to ensure continued sales over delivering a truly significant upgrade in terms of price, features, or overall value.

This consideration is crucial for consumers contemplating a purchase while at an Apple retail location or elsewhere.

It’s important to remember this point when weighing the investment against your financial resources.

Image Credits: Guudmorning!, Jason and Kehly, Lefteris Heretakis, Pedro Antunes