Talk:IPad

iPad 2?

Should we include some unconfirmed information on the iPad 2? According to Gizmodo, the iPad 2 should be thinner and lighter, include two rear and front-facing cameras and a higher-res display. They are to start production in early 2011.

Please note that these are only rumors. If we do decide to include them in this article, we should mention this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ctyonahl (talk • contribs) 21:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it's viable to present the coverage of rumors; Apple is like this. Anyway, as long as we have sources, we're OK. ǝɥʇM0N0^farewell 01:12, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

No. Absolutely not. WP:CRYSTAL: nothing goes up without an official announcement. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 22:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

HTH, I see no problem in adding mention of the rumors, *as* rumors—coverage of the rumors is fine. @theM0N0 22:57, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't think rumours should be included... -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

I do, as they are perfectly notable. mono 02:18, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Mono is completely right. In fact, it is conceivable that an article could consist entirely of rumor as long as it met the general notability guideline. Marcus Qwertyus 02:13, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

But I don't see that these rumours are notable enough for Wikipedia - otherwise we'd have articles for every product that had ever been rumoured. Wikipedia is not the place to support Apple's marketing machine. I find it a bit mad that iPad 2 was redirected - are we going to create iPad 3, iPad 4 etc redirects, due to being possible future products?

What we currently have in the article seems reasonable - though I'd argue it should be integrated into the main text, rather than needing a special section. Mdwh (talk) 22:09, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Heh, now I see that someone already has created iPad 3 as a redirect - although I see that this was done more to prevent people from creating the article, so yes, I see that as being a valid argument for preferring redirects to delete, in that if we deleted, someone would inevitably recreate it. Mdwh (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

It's official. The iPad 2 was announced today with delivery March 11, 2011. Please update.173.58.53.212 (talk)

Deletion request

Of note there is a deletion request for iPad 2 at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IPad 2. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:43, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Wrong Date

In the Technical specifications the date for release of Ipad 2 says 2010. It's 2011 now. I would fix it but the page is locked. 24.87.16.83 (talk) 06:52, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Omitted Features

While I'm generally not one to do anything to make Apple look better, I have to object to the existence of an "omitted features" section. I always find sections like this inherently non neutral. In order for something to be "missing" or "omitted" it is implied that said thing is supposed to be there, or was there at one point. Who decides if something was supposed to be there? If CNET said "The iPad is pretty great but you can't use it as a skillet", you wouldn't list put "Can't be used as a skillet" under "omitted features". I think this section should be removed. Some of the content could be moved to other sections if necessary, but I think that for NPOV's sake, this has to be removed. Let me know what you all think. Captain Stack (talk) 10:12, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. Apple promotes the iPad as the best way to experience the web, email, photos and video. Flash is widely used for videos and games on websites and the failure to include flash limits the devices ability to display video and play games. The failure to include USB or SD card port limits ability to display or import photos for email. Using your example, the reason this section exists is because Apple claimed that they were going to make the best skillet in the world. Yet, on release the iSkillet is discovered to be able to only cook eggs if they are not from a chicken, all the spices on my rack can't be used without buying multiple attatchments, and I am unable to add peppers and onions to my eggs as that would be cooking more than one thing at a time.Jojuko (talk) 17:53, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'd submit that there are relatively few major sources of flash video which do not also offer their content in the more up-to-date formats supported by the iPad and other browswers. Apple offer a camera connection kit which allows you to import your photos from USB and SD card. Marketing phrases like "The best.." are just that, marketing. The actuality is always going to be a subjective opinion, but trying to shoot that down and prove it wrong is neither encyclopaedic or terribly interesting. I agree that the tone of an "omitted features" section is clearly grinding an axe and I too question it has NPOV or indeed any relevance to the article. Bonusballs (talk) 18:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

What do you recommend doing with regards to the content? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:57, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Some of the content I think we should delete and not feel bad about but you have to use your best judgement. However, something like the lack of Flash can go in the web browsing section. Something like the lack of an SD card slot however, I really question its relevance. There's a lot of tech stuff that goes on gadgets. We all wanted an SD card slot, we think it'd be better with one, but the fact is, the iPad doesn't have to have one and just because we wanted it doesn't mean it has to be here. Regarding what Jojuko said, I think Flash is a decent thing to call "missing" because Apple did say that it can browse the entire web, but I think most of the other stuff can be removed and/or moved to the Reception section. Captain Stack (talk) 20:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree - some of the points are valid and of some note - the absence of Flash is arguably notable because of the brouhaha that resulted and its place in a story of the battle of emerging web standards etc (blah blah blah), since the iPad was perhaps a unique lightning rod in that conversation. Most of the section itself is reasonably evenly balanced and the points could live with validity elsehwere in the article, but grouping them together under "Omitted Features" just seems like axe-grinding to me. Bonusballs (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to cover each of the points and explain their importance. Flash is widely used for online games and video. Bonusballs might think that few websites use flash, but he could not be more wrong. At release the iPad was unable to display video from YouTube, Hulu, Dailymotion, Metacafe, Megavideo, Vimeo, TED, and CBS to name a few. I'm hard pressed to think of a third party video site that did not use flash. They are now able to display video from YouTube, Hulu plus(the pay service, not Hulu), TED and CBS; that still leaves a great many sites inaccessible. USB is ubiquitous on netbooks and laptops, including everyone made by Apple going back to the first iMac. To claim that failure to include USB support is anything but a design flaw is disingenuous. SD cards are used by the majority of cameras in use and on the market. As the iPad is promoted as a device ideal for viewing and sending photos this is again a serious problem. SD card readers are again a common feature on both netbooks and laptops. These three things must be included in this article. There is very good reason that almost every review out there mentions these three flaws. They continue to bring these points up even to this day. Removing these would violate NPOV, not the other way around. Wikipedia is not designed to blindly promote particular products. However, I do not see a problem with integrating them in the article as a whole and agree it would be best to get rid of the omitted features section. Criticisms should be integrated into the body of the article rather than given their own section. As for screen aspect ratio and a built in camera, I see these as disappointments of not meeting the hype and expectations of critics for the device to really realize its potential. Video conferencing was never a promoted feature and aspect has little impact for viewing most videos. Because of that I would have little problem with those being mentioned only briefly or not at all. Again, flash not being supported needs to be continued as it was a huge problem on release and continues to limit the devices functionality to this day. As for USB and SD card slots, that is mentioned repeatedly on Apple's site as a limitation that is remedied by buying the iPad camera connection kit. When these flaws are mentioned in the article I think it is only appropriate to mention this remedy right after. As for multitasking, I believe this deserves mention as a flaw that existed upon release but was later fixed. Jojuko (talk) 03:24, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I would like to add suggestions as where to move this content. First under the reviews section it should mention common praise and criticism for the device. The display, speed, interface, battery life, apps, and price are mentioned as positives in the majority of reviews. Lack of flash (and the widespread use of this format especially at release), USB and SD ports (although solved with the camera connection kit), multitasking (fixed with later upgrade), and camera (should probably be included due to widespread mention). I do not think the lack of flash should be moved to the web browsing section. It would apply, but there is no web browsing section in this article. It is our duty on wikipedia to distill information from third party sources. Cherry picking only the things that we would like to hear, ignoring what is present in the majority of reviews, is just not acceptable.Jojuko (talk) 04:53, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

I think some of you guys need to be WP:BOLD on this. I'm not 100% sure what you want to do, but it sounds fine. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:28, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Madtv

Should we reference the Madtv iPad sketch made before this was invented? Thylacinus cynocephalus (talk) 21:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

I assume it can connect to WEP networks. What about WPA/WPA2 etc.?

CaribDigita (talk) 01:54, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

This reply to you comes via an iPad using a WPA2 network. Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 03:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

iPad 2 redirect header

This looks rather ugly, and if there was more coverage there would be a "main article" link so it seems unneeded. Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

If we just call the section iPad 2 that would eliminate many problems. Marcus Qwertyus 08:48, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

That is certainly a lot better than the current situation. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:49, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Is there any evidence that the next iPad will in fact be called iPad 2? While certainly possible, it seems unlikely given recent names of Apple products. Furthermore, the content in this section contains information about future revisions, not necessarily the next revision, so using something like "Future iPads" seems more appropriate. For that reason, I think the current "for a notional iPad 2" wording should be adjusted. --Mepolypse (talk) 12:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

== iPad support and development ==

Followed by

iPad 2

iPad 2 is blah blah blah

Software updates

more blah

As for the name iPad 2: It is the common name and who cares if we get the name wrong. We got it wrong with the first iPad. Marcus Qwertyus 13:03, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Sounds like a lot of blah blah blah to me. ;-) Seriously, I don't understand what your proposal is. What do software updates have to do with this? As for who might care, our readers might, if they get the impression that the name is known. For that reason I think it's more appropriate to refer to them as "future iPads" (the first existing paragraph) and "the next iPad" (the second existing paragraph) respectively. We could add info noting that the press uses speculative names like iPad 2 in a parenthesis or similar, but we should make it clear that the true name for the next iPad is not yet known. --Mepolypse (talk) 15:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

The next iPad sounds like a better name, if we can keep the "iPad 2 redirects here" from being in the article as that is far more annoying. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:29, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

we have to follow the references. They uniformly use the name, ipad 2. When there is an official name, we can change and add the necessary redirects. DGG ( talk ) 23:22, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

I think The next iPad or Future iPads would be best. (When I created the section I called it "iPad 2" – with quotes.) --Pnm (talk) 23:56, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 86.99.152.73, 15 January 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} I believe that this article could be provided with more info. By the Way , wish Wikipedia a 10th Birthday Greetings

86.99.152.73 (talk) 17:23, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Such as? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 17:25, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

iPad 2 related content

Apparently this redirect was taken to deletion review. If anyone wishes to discuss further content for this device can they do so below. It would be useful to gauge whether there is going to be enough content that it should be spun out into its own article. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 16:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This appears to be being discussed above in the iPad 2 section, so lets keep discussion there. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 22:13, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

iPad 2 release date speculation

I've just removed a comment from PC Mag about the iPad 2 release date, its quite clear from the article that the author is just making it up. Thus its not suitable for inclusion here. Most of the other stuff iPad 2 speculation at least has some factual basis to work on. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:46, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

The second comment on the release date has been removed as well as it isn't backed up by a WP:RS. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:50, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Next iPad GPU rumor

I removed information from this source about rumors of the new iPad GPU. Per WP:CRYSTAL, speculation doesn't belong in Wikipedia. It doesn't matter whether it's printed in reliable sources. --Pnm (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Update re Apps

The statement, dated Sep 2010, that there are 25,000 apps for the ipad is not at all current. Apple now (Feb 2, 2011) says "... you can choose from over 300,000 iPhone and iPod touch apps in the App Store. iPad works with almost all of them." http://www.apple.com/ipad/apps-for-ipad/ This raises the issue as to how current is any of the information. I appreciate the effort and the need to lock the article but could the article please post the "last fully reviewed for current info" date. A locked article could have a special utility (not necessarly this general discussion area, for the public to suggest updates or additions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.19 (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The iPad figure doesn't include apps that are primarily not designed for the iPad. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:37, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Your distinction might make sense in your own mind but what I care about is getting useful, balanced info to the reader. When an app "primarily not designed" (whatever that means)for the iPad nevertheless works just fine and dandy on the iPad (the phone and pad DO share the same operating system), then it is misleading to use the "25,000" number. We ALL know that your number is ancient in that zillions of new iPhone/iPad apps are hitting the market every month and stats are no longer kept re which are "Primarily designed" for which. They are designed for a certain OS. (I'm sorry I don't "sign" these but my eyesight is bad and it's hard for me to read all the small print re registedring etc. Call me Sorker.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.19 (talk) 01:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempted toilet humor inappropriate

This is my polite, non-attack, welcoming and assumes-good-faith comment re "In the first days after the iPad's announcement, some media and many online commenters criticized the name "iPad", noting its similarity to "pad", the common name for a sanitary napkin. Shortly after the launch announcement, the hashtag "iTampon" became the number-two trending topic on the social networking site Twitter."

Pu-leeze! Any anti-Apple adolescent (or adult stuck in that stage) can create supposed criticizm like that. I KNOW that you have objective sources for the info but it's not real in the sense of any true outrage, it's not relevant, and it ought not make the cut as to use of space in the article. That's not "censorship" it's deciding what info is relevant to the reader.

"Pad" has more than 20 definitions: apartment, helicopter landing place, a foot, bound paper, floating leaf of a water plant, any horizontal concrete surface, athletic-impact protection devices, medical gause pads, brake pads, it can even mean a horse with an easy gate or to fake (as to pad the accounts) or to walk. "Any fool", so that includes me, knows that the iPad name evokes a certain general size of thin, flat surface the user can hold and read from and write on (i.e. a pad of paper). If you want a section for "Ipad in popular culture" (so that I know to skip it) then put this there. Please.

Half of the article seems to be remnants of an old, outdated "buzz" article about the launch and reception and predictions. It's as though an article about aircraft spend half of its space on pre-1910 info. Perhaps fine for its time but not a good base now. A 2011 article needs a rewrite with a different approach. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.75.19 (talk) 19:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected}}

Please remove "noting its similarity to 'pad',". This is entirely unnecessary and, in fact, reads like something written by a 12 year old child with a boner. 99.184.95.183 (talk) 02:48, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

We could remove that whole sentence on the iTampon thing. At this point possibly its undue weight? -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 08:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Probably better to split reception of the iPad and remove the non-essentials from this article. Marcus Qwertyus 08:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Good idea. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 09:13, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Genx97, 7 February 2011

{{edit semi-protected}} To be included in History I would like to include the more recent speculation that the iPad was tested with the public during the Pixar movie The Incredibles. http://www.cultofmac.com/did-steve-jobs-test-the-ipad-with-pixar-movie-%E2%80%9Cthe-incredibles%E2%80%9D-macworld-2011/79445 Genx97 (talk) 03:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

 Not done: That's definitely not a reliable source, and we generally don't print speculation. If you have a reliable source, we can look at it and see if it appropriate to include. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Images

Hi all. I want to have a discussion regarding image use, and what constitutes a good image. In the infobox, we prefer to have a clean, straight-on shot, but it is most important to show the holistic product, including the user interface. Therefore, Evan-Amos's image is currently unacceptable but can potentially be superior to the current image. There are many images that technically infringe copyright, but are tagged as free and available on Commons. Perhaps of the least concern is the image previously used to illustrate reading a book, with a copyrighted contemporary work. Although I have let Evan-Amos's replacement stand, after the infobox it is often helpful to show the product being used, rather than in a vacuum. Please be courteous when adding/replacing images. Also, most copyright violations do not require right-this-moment attention, and can be dealt with by discussion. Therefore, I have protected the page for an hour, which with hopefully give Evan-Amos time to make a version suitable for the infobox. HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 18:47, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Trout accepted. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 18:51, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice new image. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 20:53, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Would it not be possible to show the iPad displaying a Wikipedia page? Some iPad browsers can be configured to not show the top toolbar, if the browser's copyright is an issue. --NellieBly (talk) 21:33, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

That isn't really very interesting or worthwhile - you may as well show the device off. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 23:06, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Education Outdated

The Patterson School of Diplomacy and International Commerce now has all students, faculty, and administrators doing the bulk of their work off iPads. They are currently the most-involved experiment in iPad application in the classroom. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.163.237.17 (talk) 06:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

28 January iPad release to 25 countries

Currently the "Release" section only states that India received the iPad on 28 January 2011, but South Africa and Latvia did as well. Does anyone have a source stating all 25 countries that received the device on 28 January 2011? I can't find anything on the Apple site about this at all. --The Extremist (User, Talk) 14:35, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

We certainly don't want to list all 25 of the countries, I'm extremely dubious about the value of listing more than the important countries at any stage. -- Eraserhead1 <talk> 19:12, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

New section - Entertainment

I think after "Music", we could add that Gordon Ramsay's Claridge's restaurant uses an iPad for its wine list (reported in Harpers Wine and Spirit Magazine) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.18.224 (talk) 23:35, 27 February 2011 (UTC)