Categories

The new iPad. Is it better?

The problem with getting better is that if you’re more than good enough you’re actually getting worse. Improving beyond the point where your improvements can be absorbed is not only wasteful but it’s also dangerous. It opens the door to competitors who compete asymmetrically.

This is the perverse and pervasive threat hanging over all system vendors. The temptation to “get better” is not coming from incentives and human nature. It’s  always there as Moore’s Law offers an exponential increase in power. People don’t naturally have exponentially increasing needs. For them to absorb this new power, it has to be couched in new uses.

What has permitted the absorption of improvements in semiconductor performance (and production) have been other aspects of the system: the software, communications and services innovations have been positioned on more demanding jobs to be done which, once hired for those jobs, saturate the available processing and storage.

This is most easily evident in how digital photography has advanced. The constraints on sensors meant that quality was initially poor and as cameras were unconnected, they were relatively under-utilized. But once software and communications were added (by inclusion in smartphones) digital photo creation exploded. This, in turn, led to more storage needs both on the device and the servers. In a virtuous cycle, more processing power meant video was possible, then high definition video, then slow motion high definition video. The previous storage limits on mobile devices were quickly overwhelmed. Megabytes of storage became gigabytes and then hundreds of gigabytes. Video editing meant processing power was suddenly in demand again. Cores multiplied.

Third party media (music and videos) storage and playback used to be the main job that storage was hired to do[1] but as cameras got better, user-generated content suddenly bellied up to the bar.

That is now the story for phones, which are gobbling up all the storage and bandwidth we can throw at them. But what about the larger form factors? Are iPads (and laptops) growing in their demands? Paradoxically, it would seem that the smaller devices are hungrier than their larger cousins.

The answer lies with the jobs to be done. If highly portable devices are more usable, they will be used more. Large devices are left behind, literally, because their jobs are not as pervasive in place and time. For a large screen like the iPad to increase its attractiveness, it has to be the stage for a set of jobs that only it can perform.

The new iPad has the horsepower. It has more portability (thinner, lighter) and it has the touch ID convenience. It even has a better camera. But for it to succeed it needs to be hired for a set of jobs as expansive in usage as the user-generated photo/video jobs that the iPhone has been called to do.

I hire my iPad for one such job: to persuade audiences small and large. I use it across a dining table and across an auditorium to appeal with a visual language. I use Perspective to create stories that have to be seen to be believed and once seen, create belief.

The tool is demanding however. As the stories are fed by data and the visualizations are rendered algorithmically and not as stored images it is hungry for processing power. I also need it to record performances which taxes storage. I need to transmit those performances both in real-time and as recordings, tasking the WiFi and cellular bandwidth. I need as much screen as I can get to be able to interact with the elements on screen, of which there may be hundreds. I need to export video versions of performances and thus I need a video studio with all its extravagance. I need it to run for all-day workshops connected to a projector, sometimes through AirPlay, under stage lights, which pushes the battery.

Consider my last padcast. It was recorded in one take lasting 18 minutes. I then exported the results to a video that was uploaded to Vimeo and viewed by thousands. However it took over one hour to render it and due to that constraint I did not have the luxury of editing it. I could not easily add, subtract or annotate the video production. This was done on an iPad Air and I was happy to get it done at all.

But if I had an iPad Air 2, not only would production time be shrunk[2] the things I could attempt to do with a presentation suddenly expand. It’s not just about more efficiency but an expansion of scope. More power means more work I choose to do.

So is the new iPad better? As far as the jobs I hire it do do, the new iPad is better. It is in fact not good enough. Which is the best thing to be.

Notes:
  1. Which was far more demanding than office-like documents []
  2. To about half the time []
  • Mark Jones

    Excellent post. Intentionally or not, it probably gives the rationale for Apple’s lineup of iPads from $249 to $829, including its decision to leave the iPad mini with an A7.

    The iPad Air 2, aimed to be a PC-level production device, needs all the horsepower it can get (and now needs more and better apps). The iPad mini 1/2/3, generally used much more as consumption devices, need even greater mobility and lower costs. Giving the mini more horsepower at a corresponding cost would overserve almost all of its users and potential users.

    I’d so love to see Apple’s data that led them to move the mini from being on par performance-wise with the Air, to now being roughly two tiers down (A8X–A8–A7).

    • vincent_rice

      There’s no strategic (over) thinking going on here – the mini is simply half a development cycle behind. It got it’s big update last time out.

      • Shameer Mulji

        Or maybe Apple’s positioning the iPad mini to take the place of the iPod Touch. Let’s face it, the iPod line is one or two quarters away from being on its death bed. There’s no reason, come this Xmas, for parents to buy their kids iPod Touches.

      • vincent_rice

        You are reading far too much into it

      • Glaurung-Quena

        100% wrong. The touch makes a nice internet connected camera. It lets people (kids, students, limited income adults) who cannot afford a $100 per month data plan (North American cost) enjoy everything else that an IPhone has to offer. It’s an excellent pocket gateway drug to IOS. The mini cannot replace it for these purpose because it’s not pocketable.

      • Shameer Mulji

        You obviously haven’t seen how many people use iPads for photography have you? /s. At a starting price now, of $249, there’s no reason for parents to buy their kids iPod Touch.

        This is the 2nd year in a row that Apple hasn’t devoted any additional resources to updating / upgrading the iPod / Touch line except for making the iPod Touch now start at $199. You don’t think that tells you something?

      • charly

        iphone 4s 8gb was €300 before the iphone 6 came out so ipod touch as an iphone without phone makes sense at 200

      • charly

        An iphone without contract is only slightly more expensive

      • Glaurung-Quena

        And in what land of infinite income is $450 for an off-contract iphone 5 “only slightly more” than $200 for an ipod touch?

      • charly

        ipod touch (5G) 16GB €200
        iphone 4s 8GB €300
        iphone 5 8GB €380
        The cheapest nokia dumbphone is €20 so €100 for being an iphone instead of a touch is cheap

      • StevenDrost

        At 1/3 the price it will always be a couple of generations behind and there are a flood of used phones that can take its spot. Makes less sense as a product every year.

      • charly

        ipod touch is the idea size to take orders in a restaurant. Not a gigantic market but still a big market

      • Mark Jones

        Certainly the mini will get upgraded in the future (as all it’s competitors also get upgraded). But will Apple ever bring the mini back on par with the Air like it was last year? I doubt it; instead I think Apple will do what it can to drive the mini to reach the “magic” $199 price.

      • vincent_rice

        I disagree. Time will tell.

      • Farshad Nayeri

        Like all pros, Apple has the confidence to know there will always be a next release. I am sure Apple applies those economies but if they thought mini should be upgraded they would do so.

        My guess is that iPad mini was a defense against the Kindle. I think the new price may actually take away more Kindle Fire users who may be value-oriented.

        Remember that if things go as Apple wants, this will be the first of many devices bought by the first-time iPad mini buyer.

    • Farshad Nayeri

      FWIW, iPad Air 2 is not nearly fast enough for the Apps (or shall I say stories) that we plan to use it for. Lots more headroom there.

  • LTMP

    I believe that Apple agrees with you, and that is why they chose Pixelmator and Replay as their third party app demoes for the keynote. And why the Mini received only minor upgrades.

    It seems that Apple is positioning the iPad Mini as a consumption device and the iPad Air as a productivity device.

    • Farshad Nayeri

      It doesn’t appear that Apple doesn’t target one use case.

      Note: iPad mini also provides coverage for the lower line of iPad platform. A usable entry point iPad at $250. Think about the world that this $250 opens. This is same reason why 16Gb iPhones exist. See also EW Paris above.

  • stefnagel

    “People don’t naturally have exponentially increasing needs. For them to absorb this new power, it has to be couched in new uses.” Sweetly said.

  • EW Parris

    It’s interesting that Apple, with all it’s expertise in communication, hasn’t spent much time talking about how much better, faster, stronger the iPad Air 2 really is.

    Could it be they’re hesitant to put too much emphasis on speeds and feeds?

    • Oomu

      it’s what apple did at the keynote

      it’s why Pixelmator and Replay was demoed. To show how powerful, the desktop-class applications, the ipad is made for now.

      • Farshad Nayeri

        I think @EW Paris’s point was that they didn’t mention specs or anything technical about the iPad. Like the fact that it has 2G RAM, which means Apps have 3x the amount available to them to play with as iPad Air.

      • Oomu

        you’re right. and it is a big improvement for apps

        but it’s Apple’s way for a long time. Apple does not communicate about cpus (but to tell it is GreatAmazinpendous…) or ram for iOS devices. Even if it seems counterproductive.

        In the end, developers will discover it themselves.

      • Farshad Nayeri

        Apple does plenty of communication about specs when it comes down the Mac. It’s Phil Schiller’s job. iPad, not so much.

        It will be an improvement for _some_ Apps. Many Apps would continue to do fine with little resources. iOS is pretty efficient for what it delivers.
        — Farshad

      • Oomu

        yes.


        It will be a huge improvement for Safari, but also for my use : Procreate and others drawing apps 🙂

      • BMc

        Apple’s primary public communications are targeted at the users, use cases, etc. They may use terms like “2x faster at this, 40% better at that), but only as it is meant to convey to general public the improvements.

        Apple has never mentioned RAM in public, though it clearly becomes known right after delivery. It is possible that this information is shared with developers under their NDA.

    • airmanchairman

      I think Apple is waiting for the fruits of Ther software collaboration with IBM for the Enterprise to “land the killer blow”.

      In the meantime, I still agree with you on them not trumpeting the wares of thi new offering loudly enough:

      Faster, more powerful chip;
      Faster, newer Wi-Fi and LTE cellular technology;
      Slimmer, sleeker, lighter, with gold livery option;
      Better rear-facing camera with burst mode and slow-mo video;
      Touch ID sensor, enabling one-touch online ApplePay;
      That intriguing new Apple SIM, which will enable on-the-fly cellular carrier sign-up and cancellation, mighty useful for travellers seeking to avoid roaming charges…

      And the reports of record-smashing chip and graphics performance have now started to turn up online, leaving the hitherto-unchallenged iPhone 6 models trailing by a wide margin…

      There, Apple, fixed it for ya – do I get an I-prize?:-)

      • Farshad Nayeri

        Never mentioned 2G RAM. You’d be sure if this was an MBA announcement they’d be all over it.

      • charly

        Some Android phones have already 3GB. I don’t think you want to emphasize that point if you are Apple

      • Kizedek

        Kind of like how Formula 1 doesn’t splash 1.6 Liter over all their publicity materials

    • Farshad Nayeri

      Yes, 100%.

    • Fran_Kostella

      I think they don’t want to characterize devices solely in terms of numbers as it doesn’t capture the richness of the device and allows inferior tables to claim parity by numbers. They always seem to talk about it in relative terms like “faster” and “better” and they use terms like “beautiful” and “rich” a lot.

      • BMc

        Yes, this has always been the case with Apple (especially for iOS devices) for some time.

  • http://www.isophist.com/ Emilio Orione

    I think iPad lineup is not in sync with iPad positioning, mini for consumer air for production.
    Positioning the Air as a computer device for production, a low cost laptop if we consider Apple price for notebook, is right, but then why sell two version of it, one with a price and one with a sim card slot at 120$ more?
    Just sell the computer with different ram configuration/price and all the slot it needs.

    • Mark Jones

      Because most notebooks don’t come with cellular. Why put the iPad at a pricing disadvantage for those who want to use the iPad mostly like a notebook (and thus without cellular)? And doesn’t the iPhone Instant Hotspot work with the iPad? Apple probably also expects the carriers to be more than willing to make that $120 difference disappear in promotions.

      • Glaurung-Quena

        “Edit: By the way, the cellular iPads have more than just a sim slot. There’s a bunch of chips and circuitry as well.”

        Don’t forget a bunch of telecom regulatory approvals, which also adds to the cost.

    • Farshad Nayeri

      If Apple could sell one iPad, they would. The problem is these are two distinct markets. 1. Market of mobile “warriors” who need constant access (perhaps even on a VPN connection.Think sales people.) 2. Everyone else including you and I. Each will be sorry if they bought the iPad targeted to the other.

      Only once I bought an iPad with LTE and I have to say in more than one occasion it has saved my butt at important meetings when wifi wasn’t working. Many companies would consider this insurance of “always being able to connect” as well worth the $120 down and $10/month fee.

      FWIW, I don’t believe Apple is positioning the iPad as a “production tool”, at least not yet. Editing some pixels is hardly “production”. Of course I do think, as I think Horace that there are use cases that haven’t been explored properly and only when they develop real use will emerge.

  • Fran_Kostella

    The job to be done is a great way to focus on where the device is now, but I feel like the question of the potentials of the device format is just under the surface.

    The limits I encounter with my iPads are that the screens are much too small for the kind of jobs I most need to do. As a software developer I typically have a lot of things going on while I work. A variety of loosely coupled systems which I need to monitor, a variety of servers and mobile devices that are moving data and synchronizing data, and a bunch of work processes that on going on in the background like downloading updates or large media files or monitoring information from the businesses I am working with. I rarely limit myself to one screen and typically have four or five screens working at once.

    Given that, I need a lot of screen area to show me everything I’m following. Yes, I could switch views, but that means I need to mentally jump up to a meta context of managing the location of all my data streams, which reduces my effectiveness a great deal. (Hint: if you want to inexpensively improve developer productivity, allow them to have as many displays of size and quality that they want). Ideally I’d have a massive display centered at my eye line that wraps around my field of view and ties together the output of the cloud of devices I am using. This cloud is just going to grow over time and we don’t have excellent solutions for that problem, yet.

    Currently, I have an iPad set up for doing mail/video chat or acting as the target mobile device in a system being developed. I find that for this kind of use, reaching over to touch a tablet screen is much easier than switching to a different computer keyboard/mouse, especially for opening a just arrived email or video chat.

    I would love to have some large format touchscreen devices that are lightweight enough so that I can easily reposition them or carry them around. iPads are just a bit too small and underpowered to do this job for me now. I need some large format iPads with more power. However, that requires a big jump in battery storage to make them portable, and that requires that the batteries not weigh very much. I suppose that when that dream comes true I will also need a corresponding jump in wireless network capability.

    The other important job I have for iPads is to allow me to fluidly move documents around for reading and annotating. I’m looking forward to the new Continuity features and hoping they will resolve this problem, or some portion of the problem. I currently use some clunky processes to move ebooks, pdfs and the occasional office document between iPad and laptop as I often need to move around and I really wish this process were seamless.

    So, no, the iPad is not good enough, yet. I need a variety of glass panels of little weight and high compute capacity. Oh, and not too expensive, thanks! Despite that, the new iPad is very tempting, but I already have a bunch of iPads that are underused, so the improvement isn’t so great that I will jump at a new one when there are other, more compelling, devices (like the new 5K display iMac) just announced. I would have already ordered a 13″ or larger iPad.

    • Farshad Nayeri

      Even in Software Development there are niche opportunities to break out of the normal workflows. For example, managing/reassigning bugs in an issue tracker is a task well-fit for iPad. (Not so much entering them, though there is a camera, you could take pictures of the bug and have the App interpret the context.) The obstacle is that most issue trackers are webuis which are more or less modeled around a not-so-good Windows App.

      My guess is that there are niches like this in every domain. And if the proper App is deployed the _people_ productivity gain will be well worth the $100/year price spent on keeping up an iPad. The problem is that these use cases require Apps, and it’s hard to build “professional” software for free or nominal prices.

      • Fran_Kostella

        Right, but this doesn’t require an iPad to need improvement, better web UIs for issue trackers would benefit all users, not just iPad users. Lots of UIs are problematic, but that seems orthogonal to the iPad’s niche.

        Horace’s question was about the device, so I’m imagining the job I have for the iPad that would fit it. Some big iOS style touch screens would make my job much easier, especially if I can flow documents and communication systems from device to device. Apple could do this with the iPad or a new device and the existing software would do most of what I need quite well, especially if Continuity keeps moving forward.

  • vincent_rice

    I’m convinced now of two things: we’ll be seeing an iPad ‘Pro’ at 12″+ sometime next year and, MacBook Air’s running on Apple ‘A’ processors.

    • Shameer Mulji

      First, what would convince you that Apple will be putting one of its custom-designed A processors into a MBA line?

      Let’s assume they do. Would seem kind of redundant / wasteful. Both of those devices have a lot of overlap in their use cases with the only differentiation being their UI. Plus, having an iPad Pro would defeat the purpose of having a tablet that’s light and comfortable to hold for long periods of time.

      I’m still skeptical of the iPad Pro simply because I don’t see what advantage it would have over the iPad Air 2 other than bigger screen.

      • vincent_rice

        You make no sense. Apple will clearly migrate ALL their machines to Apple processors – it’s only a question of time. Complete vertical integration of the hardware has been the goal for ages. How can it be any more redundant/wasteful than now? I don’t get it.

        iPads are good for some things, MacBooks for others. They both have room for improvements.

        Having a larger screen IS THE POINT

      • Tatil_S

        I disagree. Larger screen is not, what you are planning to do with that larger screen is the point. (Should I use all caps?) It will most likely get heavier (on a scientific scale) and feel even more so in your hand due to the larger size. Will the new or better use scenarios enabled by the larger screen be enough to overcome the disadvantage of size?

      • vincent_rice

        I’m sorry, but I can’t help you with your lack of imagination.

      • Farshad Nayeri

        Don’t think size, think container. Where will the device go?
        5/5s: pocket
        6: pocket/purse
        6p: purse/murse
        mini: coat pocket, side pocket
        Air: backpack, briefcase ← plenty of room to expand

        Also thinness and lightness makes a huge difference of what people will carry with them–much more so than one would imagine.

      • Farshad Nayeri

        A larger-screen iPad will transform iPad from the best 1-1 persuasive tool to the best 1-4 persuasive tool. That’s 4x the productivity.

        But Apple always stretches its product releases so it is not about _if_ as much as it’s about _when_.

        Apple has shown in the recent past that it doesn’t care that much about overlap. They will push every platform as hard, and as many use cases as reasonable without worrying about cannibalizing others, as Tim Cook keeps repeating on every investor call.

        I am sure a few MBA An designs are floating about Apple. Putting it into production is another story. Mac (and to some extent iPad) are in the dying PC segment so I am wondering how much focus they will get from Apple. Given the parts they share, iPad is also benefiting from the iPhone economies of scale more than the Mac.

      • Shameer Mulji

        “Mac (and to some extent iPad) are in the dying PC segment so I am wondering how much focus they will get from Apple.”

        Given that Mac sales rose 21% YoY and had it’s best quarter since 1995, I don’t think Apple has given up on the Mac. I don’t believe we’re Peak Mac just yet.

        If (or when) Apple releases a larger-screen iPad, what is the job to be done for that device? Otherwise it’s just bigger, heavier, and harder-to-hold then the iPad Air, in which case you might as well get a MBA or MBP.

        When I think of the iPad Air / 2 and job to be done, a great article that comes to mind is this one;

        http://techpinions.com/the-ipad-air-2s-huge-upside/35974

        Some key points jump out from it;

        “There is, however, something the iPad is designed to replace that mobile field workers use frequently–the clipboard.”

        “iPad’s are largely being utilized by workers who did not previously use a computer regularly in their day job. This is because their job function requires them to stand or be moving most of the time. In essence, most of these workers carried around a clipboard along with some paper process as a part of their routine”

        “With that understanding, it makes sense Apple continues to make the iPad thinner and lighter. To use this “PC in the shape of a tablet” all day while on your feet, it has to be light. It has to be easy to hold and operate for long periods of time.”

        A bigger-screen iPad would go against the philosophy of being lighter and easier to hold for long periods of time.

      • BMc

        On the question of an “An” based Macbook, it would depend on positioning. It would need to start in the lower price area. By going with their own chips, they save large $$ on the processors being purchased from Intel, which allows for a lower priced unit with same (or better) margins. From the $899 lowest Macbook Air, they might be able to target $699.

        This could be targeted at the education sector, where wide availability of legacy software is not as important (many schools use web apps now), but price is. Apple has its own first party apps, and I am sure could entice a number of developers to extend their touch-based ARM applications for a laptop form factor. This new laptop would have better battery life, be more stable, advance faster over time, and ability to gain from the hardware and software investments made in iPhone/iPad (SOCs, secure enclave, photo and video processing, TouchID, etc).

        Price alone is not a reason, but that with a way of differentiating from the traditional x86 line (runs many more programs, utilizes that UNIX core), would provide Apple with a much larger target market. While iPad is targeted at this market a lot, there are use cases for laptops, and also the larger target would be the students themselves.

        As noted in several articles, the A8X is getting close to (slightly older) Macbook Air levels of performance in many areas.

        Certainly seems to me like a “when” more than an “if” of a move in this direction in general.

      • Shameer Mulji

        Great explanation.

        ” Apple has its own first party apps, and I am sure could entice a number of developers to extend their touch-based ARM applications for a laptop form factor.”

        For education market, and probably enterprise as well, MS Office would more than likely need to come on board.

      • BMc

        Yes, that would certainly be a great development for such a device. Office is already supported on ARM for the Surface RT line, so technically MS could do so with reasonable work effort (return on investment). Whether they would want to do so is another matter.

      • Paul Franceus

        Office on ARM for Windows != Office on ARM for Mac. I’m sure there’s a decent amount of common code, but don’t underestimate the porting effort here.

      • Paul Franceus

        They would have the same problem that Microsoft had with the Surface RT (with an ARM chip). All existing Mac software is developed only for X86. It is non-trivial to support another architecture. Therefore, no software. Now, they could go the emulator route like they have twice in the past, 68K -> PowerPC -> X86 but in those cases they were increasing hardware performance. X86 is faster than ARM on an absolute level and I don’t see that changing any time soon. So you’d have a much much slower machine running important existing applications like Microsoft Office.

      • Shameer Mulji

        Surface RT was (or is) running Windows RT and is designed to compete with the iPad / iOS. Having a Mac / MBA based on an Apple-designed A-series chip running OSX for ARM that would not run legacy OSX apps would be more akin to a Chromebook. Chances are this new device would have an altogether different branding, meaning it wouldn’t be a Mac or an iPad.

        Since MS Office already runs on the iPad, it already runs on ARM and it performs well actually, and that’s an iPad older than new iPad Air 2. Imagine how well it would run on that device or more powerful ARM-based OSX machine.

        As long as Apple releases API’s that allows 3rd party devs to optimize for keyboard / mouse, MS should be able to use the same code base of Office for iPad and tweak it to run on an OSX for ARM device. Then you can have universal apps for iPhone, iPad, OSX for ARM

        The current A8X SoC in the iPad Air 2 is as fast as a MBA from a couple of years ago. And that’s running at 1.5Ghz. On a bigger machine, Apple can easily clock that chip higher and maintain great battery life. And in a couple of years it’s easy for a device of this caliber to be able to cannibalize the MBA line from a performance / capability perspective.

        There’s so many ways Apple can go.

      • charly

        Why would Microsoft want to support a direct competitor for desktop Windows. They wont come out with it before it is a success (Read at least 5% of the market excluding schools because the can use the online version of Office)

      • Shameer Mulji

        They already have a competitor for desktop Windows – Office for Mac. They already have Office for iPad. And in case you haven’t been following MS most recently, more and more of their software / services are coming out for all major platforms, Android included. Do your homework.

      • charly

        OSX isn’t exactly a big competitor of Windows and it has price problems so no treat for MS. Android and IOS are to be the ignore, something Google is doing at the moment with Windows phone.

  • Luis Alejandro Masanti

    I think that ‘this year’ the ‘job to be done’ of the iPad line ‘for Apple’ is to ‘have TouchID’ so Apple Pays is accesible thru all the ‘i’ devices.

    I also think that there is an iPod touch in the making with TouchID. (I also would like to see an iPod touch max… an iPod touch with 360GB hard disk!)

  • katherine anderson

    Any genre or any physical object, including the iPad, is defined by its limits.

    It’s the process of searching to better understand those limits, to test the limits, and to find the qualities unique to those limits, that will set the stage for the “set of jobs” Horace talks about, “that only the iPad can perform.” (Much like how a writer or visual artist finds the possibility of meaningful expression within the limits of the genre or medium in which they work.)

    Needless to say, there’s more that belongs to literature and art, and how their limits embody meaning, but I don’t think it will be long before people understand that it is the app developers (a great many of them, including you folks below, the artists of our time) who will shape the iPad into the genius device it will become.

    • berult

      Increments to ‘smart’, be they substantial or infinitesimal, can’t be fathomed within a simple arithmetical framework. A given of a tiny speck of intellectual estate, delivers, entanglement-like, an imaginary number…an autistic, unintelligible, nonetheless live rendering of accountability.

      Terra firma for Art as a roving nonsense-decipherer.

      Seed the iPad with a native SIM card, how more substantial and yet infinitesimal could that be, and a pavane rehearsal might just alchemically, non algorithmically, morph into a ‘prova d’orchestra’.

      • katherine anderson

        That’s exactly how I imagine it, as the slow processional dance of the Renaissance (the pavane) transformed into a Wagnerian opera, your ‘prova d’orchestra’.

        Berult, are you a splicing together of two, the poet Beroul and the heroine Iseult? Did you elope and leave Tristan behind?

  • http://www.jlist.com Peter Payne

    I bought the last iPad, so I will sit this one out, though I appreciate the $100 discount for the 64 and 128GB models. iPad is wonderful, especially if you travel on business, and I use mine to de-couple from work in the evenings (or early mornings, actually).