Teh One Who Knocks
03-18-2012, 12:28 PM
By David Murphy - PC Magazine
http://i.imgur.com/6td4z.jpg
Oh, the power of the placebo effect.
Tech website Gizmodo went out and picked up a new iPad on Friday and opted to let Gawker's various writers and staffers get a quick peek at Apple's new red-hot device. Or at least, that's what Gizmodo's Sam Biddle was trying to lead them to believe. Because they device they were holding off wasn't a brand-new, retina-display iPad, but instead its predecessor: The good ol' iPad 2.
The response?
"It seems very pretty," one staffer said. "It's light. You know, it's not quite like my Kindle, but it'll do, I suppose."
That's not so bad, right? Especially for someone who claims to have never touched an iPad prior to Gizmodo's delivery. It gets worse.
"It's still… it's not as sharp as my phone," commented another staffer, correctly noticing that the iPad 2's simple 1024-by-768 resolution (at 132 pixels-per-inch) would have a lower pixel density than, say, a Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone (316 pixels-per-inch) or an iPhone 4S (326 pixels-per-inch).
"I actually wish it was lighter," the staffer added. "It feels heavy. The screen overall is OK. I still see pixilation. It's not like, 'Holy God, I'm looking out a window.'"
The descriptions continue, with most Gawker staffers delivering the typical Steve Jobs-like highlights we've come to expect by now: The iPad is super-light ("It's got good weight distribution," says one commenter), it's easy to hold, it looks great (incredible, amazing, awesome!), the resolution is wonderful, et cetera.
Not one person featured in Gizmodo's video correctly deduces that they're holding an iPad 2 instead of a new iPad.
While it's certainly a funny way to go about covering a major product release, Gizmodo's little prank also exposes the relationship between the tech ramp-up for normal shoppers versus those close to the industry. The Web always seems to be saturated with speculation and specs: What's Apple's new product going to have, followed by essays upon essays written about a device's every specification post-launch.
To typical iPad owners or potential purchasers, the words seem to fall on deaf ears. They can be told that Apple' new iPad is better than its predecessor but, as Gizmodo's experiment shows, it's not as if they have a real-world bearing for what a "Retina Display" or "faster processor" actually means. At some point, a device meets a person's internal threshold of what's "fast," or "good-looking." And unless this person is holding two products side-by-side, he or she is seemingly going to enjoy an experience with an older, similar-looking device just as much as a newer one.
Talk about an upgrade cycle killjoy.
http://i.imgur.com/6td4z.jpg
Oh, the power of the placebo effect.
Tech website Gizmodo went out and picked up a new iPad on Friday and opted to let Gawker's various writers and staffers get a quick peek at Apple's new red-hot device. Or at least, that's what Gizmodo's Sam Biddle was trying to lead them to believe. Because they device they were holding off wasn't a brand-new, retina-display iPad, but instead its predecessor: The good ol' iPad 2.
The response?
"It seems very pretty," one staffer said. "It's light. You know, it's not quite like my Kindle, but it'll do, I suppose."
That's not so bad, right? Especially for someone who claims to have never touched an iPad prior to Gizmodo's delivery. It gets worse.
"It's still… it's not as sharp as my phone," commented another staffer, correctly noticing that the iPad 2's simple 1024-by-768 resolution (at 132 pixels-per-inch) would have a lower pixel density than, say, a Samsung Galaxy Nexus smartphone (316 pixels-per-inch) or an iPhone 4S (326 pixels-per-inch).
"I actually wish it was lighter," the staffer added. "It feels heavy. The screen overall is OK. I still see pixilation. It's not like, 'Holy God, I'm looking out a window.'"
The descriptions continue, with most Gawker staffers delivering the typical Steve Jobs-like highlights we've come to expect by now: The iPad is super-light ("It's got good weight distribution," says one commenter), it's easy to hold, it looks great (incredible, amazing, awesome!), the resolution is wonderful, et cetera.
Not one person featured in Gizmodo's video correctly deduces that they're holding an iPad 2 instead of a new iPad.
While it's certainly a funny way to go about covering a major product release, Gizmodo's little prank also exposes the relationship between the tech ramp-up for normal shoppers versus those close to the industry. The Web always seems to be saturated with speculation and specs: What's Apple's new product going to have, followed by essays upon essays written about a device's every specification post-launch.
To typical iPad owners or potential purchasers, the words seem to fall on deaf ears. They can be told that Apple' new iPad is better than its predecessor but, as Gizmodo's experiment shows, it's not as if they have a real-world bearing for what a "Retina Display" or "faster processor" actually means. At some point, a device meets a person's internal threshold of what's "fast," or "good-looking." And unless this person is holding two products side-by-side, he or she is seemingly going to enjoy an experience with an older, similar-looking device just as much as a newer one.
Talk about an upgrade cycle killjoy.