Where I think the naming conventions will cause confusion is a couple of years down the road when Apple discontinues iOS updates and new apps won't work anymore. Most average consumers don't really know which "generation" of device they have. If it doesn't have a clearly defining name, average consumers will be confused as to why their iPad can't run new apps.

This is already an issue with the iPod Touch, but I think it hasn't received as much attention because the iPod Touch is less of an app-driven device than the iPad. This is the kind of consumer confusion Apple is supposed to be famous for avoiding.

Hopefully they have already considered this and are marking the iPads with some kind of subtle but clear indicator. Maybe something in the serial number, or the year clearly displayed in that area.

I waited until today's announcement before buying an iPad, and I need your help choosing which one - the new iPad or the iPad 2.

My MacBook Pro is my only computer. I would like an iPad to supplement it at home for as well as a backup when DJ'ing (the Djay software program is available on both OSX & iOS). I don't forsee using the camera at all...I have a camera & iPhone 4S for that. I'm not much of a gamer. I won't be getting a 4G version. The only real benefit I can see (no pun intended) is the Retina display and possibly the upgraded graphics processor. Other than that, there's nothing about the new iPad that is overly enticing, especially with the $100 price drop on the iPad 2. I realize I'm limited to 16GB with the iPad 2, but I might keep my eye out for a refurb or gently used 32GB.

Thoughts from owners?

Review:

http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2012/...ples-new-ipad/

cooper83 - I would suggest the iPad 2. Sure, the iPad 3 has the retina display, but the iPad 2's display is "good enough" in most cases. I don't think there would be a huge difference between the A5 & A5X processor for non-gaming tasks (and even then, the quadruple resolution would negate a fair bit of the performance gains possible with the new iPad).

To me, the biggest advantage of the new iPad isn't the increased performance or new features, but the fact that it will likely continue to receive iOS updates for a year longer than the iPad 2.

The iPad3 is (to me) very interesting, and a possible alternative to the upcoming Transformer.

One thing bothers me - many are reporting it as having a quad core CPU, but a few (far too few!) are saying it is a dual core CPU with dual core graphics module.

This bothers me because other products have true dual core CPUs and seperate, multicore graphics modules. In other words, it borders on false advertising in that it is only technically correct if you don't really understand the technology.

Interesting - when I consider using a pad for DJing, I see it as a remote control for the DJ laptop. I don't see the table as the music source.

Why? Lack of disc space, lack of portability which is what make a tablet useful.

At this time, I use my iPhone to control my DJ laptop, using HippoRemote. I have a very small ASUS wifi access point in my small rack, which allows the iPhone to link to the laptop. I have a full four port gigabit switch/wifi/router in my large rack for the same reasons.

The next step is to run something like Window's remote desktop on the tablet. That gives me a lot more control of the laptop.

The big considerations are that the sound source is attached to a USB sound card for improved audio quality, higher levels, and far better S/N, and the ability to leave the device playing music alone so there is no change of interruption. Then again, I am running Windows XP, using DJPower 2008, which is a very different environment than anything from Apple, so your considerations and priorities may be different. My primary DJ laptop is a Fujitsu P770, which has an i7 processor, 8Gb RAM, and a 750Gb 7200rpm drive. Screen resolution is 1280x800 on a 12.1" display.

As to which tablet - I purchased and used netbook for DJing for a while. It was OK, but the lower screen resolution (1024x600) was a major limitation. Moving up to 1280x800 was a major improvement. Not only are things easier to read, but you get to see more on the screen. Track lists were too short, and too much was missing from the screen on the lower resolution display. If it were me, provided $$$ allowed, I would go for the higher resolution display.

Sloppy reporting, more like it. Apple was quite clear in its presentation and its website that it has a dual core processor and quad core graphics processing.

IMO, i think the new iPad is a great upgrade. I can't wait to see the new screen. I will probably not purchase this one, but will probably buy the discounted iPad 2 for my kids.

Stock bouncing back today for those of us who own it.

Here's a nice chart for those debating between the quad tablets(Ipad3 and ASUS).

I didn't check all the specs, but the most obvious error in that chart is the battery capacity of the new iPad. It's 42.5 watt-hour, not 25 watt-hour.

Wow Apple had to almost double the capacity to get the same battery life of the current iPad. Those extra pixels really take their toll.

Thanks for the chart James99

You might want to wait to see the iPad 2 and 3 displays back to back in person. I find the iPhone 3G/GS pretty bad compared to the 4/4S and I expect the same with the iPad 1/2 compared the 3. I spend a lot (too much!) of time looking at icons for app development.

iPhone 3G/3GS: 163 PPI
iPhone 4/4S: 326 PPI

iPad 1/2: 132 PPI
iPad 3: 264 PPI

Wow apple is really laying out the marketing BS with this "Quad core" GPU crap. Going by their way of listing specs Tegra 3 has a 12 CORE gpu!! (along with a REAL Quad CPU). They realized puting out a tablet with dual-core in the specs won't cut it in todays quad-core market so made up this whole thing to confuse people... will be very interested in seeing benchmarks come out in the next few weeks!