Talk:IPad/Archive 4

Statement now obsolete
"The device is managed and synced by iTunes running on a personal computer via USB cable." As of iOS5, this is no longer true. One can now run an iPad without even owning a PC or Mac for synchronization.

Someone who can edit the page should correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.29.76.37 (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Sandbites, 16 November 2011
To copy pictures from the iPad/iPad2 to the iMac without using iTunes of iPhoto you can use Image Capture a free application that comes with the Mac. This way the iPad is seen like a drive and the picture can be copied without any alterations.

Sandbites (talk) 03:52, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Just upgrade to iOS 5 and use iCloud. Same functionality and then some at the same cost. Barts1a | Talk to me | Yell at me 09:28, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Sales
In my opinion, there should be a section under Reception, for Sales. The iPad has been one of the fastest selling gadgets and in passing the sales of all Windows Tablet PCs set itself as an industry milestone product. --Aizuku (talk) 22:08, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Willyusa
Old text: Healthcare In the healthcare field, iPads and iPhones have been used to help hospitals manage their supply chain. For example, Novation, a healthcare contracting services company, uses VHA PriceLynx (developed by MicroStrategy),

New text: Healthcare In the healthcare field, iPads and iPhones have been used to help hospitals manage their supply chain. For example, Novation, a healthcare contracting services company, developed VHA PriceLynx based on the mobile application platform of business intelligence software vendor MicroStrategy,

The article referenced (ref. 180 http://www.eweek.com/c/a/Health-Care-IT/MicroStrategy-App-for-iPhone-iPad-Helps-Hospitals-Manage-Supply-Chain-424068/ ) states that Novation developed the application, and that this application is based on the Microstrategy platform.

Willyusa (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done - Mato (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Picture
This is starting to bother me... The picture on this article if of an iPad 1, not an iPad 2. I think it should be consistent with the iPhone page and have a picture of the latest model on the article. --108.80.150.3 (talk) 03:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I will upload a new image and update it when I get the chance. --Paddude (talk) 18:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

potential WSJ video resource
Citi Analyst Predicts iPad 3 Arriving in February Dec/9/2011 1:00:00 PM  "A Citigroup analyst report is causing a stir after predicting that the iPad 3 will arrive next February, followed by the iPhone 5 in June. Plus, why 2012 may mean the year of TV on the web and news ad irritate Facebook."

99.19.45.160 (talk) 01:21, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

No mention of designer
Jonathan Ive, the designer behind all the modern Apple devices hasn't been mentioned in any one of the articles associated with the Apple devices he created, you could argue that Ive is the reason Apple is so famous today, I can only assume it's either due to ignorance or deliberate. Twobells (talk)
 * Updated the lead to include the designer Jonathan Ive whose industrial design projects made Apple the company it is today.Twobells (talk) 10:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Someone has vandalized the article and deleted the designer, fixed.Twobells (talk) 15:06, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Feel free to readd but it needs to go into the body as well to meet the FA criteria. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 15:41, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * You really need to find a reliable source to validate that claim, crediting an entire product to a single man is extremely far-fetched and I am pretty certain he only designed the exterior and possibly the internal layout; you will need to elaborate on the specifics since we are actually crediting a single person out of the hundreds that were potentially involved, if you can find a source supporting it. YuMaNuMa Contrib 01:15, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Everyone knows Jonathon Ive designed all recent Apple products, anyway cite added.Twobells (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Missing info
I was trying to find information as to how the ipad is charged - via what connector - and got none. There is plenty of text, but no actual information about the connector - nowhere in the whole article, or I am dumb and didn't find it. Could somebody pls fix this? francesco3 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Darrell_Greenwood (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Website black list
My external website was black listed. I feel my site helps people learn specific aspects of I-Pad and computers. I-Pads do not come with instructions on how to use the tablet! My website gives people access to a way to learn how to use the device! It is not spam! What's wrong with giving people the opportunity to learn how to use an I-Pad or computer? 70.171.206.43 (talk) 20:54, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If this was the ten-part video series available for "One Time Payment – Just $147 $97", then clickbank.net is rightly blacklisted for being a pure affiliate site. Affiliate links are against policy, so there is unlikely to ever be a real need to link to any part of the site, your own affiliate page included. --McGeddon (talk) 21:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, completely ridiculous that anyone would ever think such a basic and content-free affiliate link page was of any value to anyone except it's creator. Bonusballs (talk) 21:55, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Looks like this has been added back a couple of times in the past few days; new domains, but still linking to clickbank. Might have to watch the external links more closely for a while. --McGeddon (talk) 16:33, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

iPad 3 article
I am proposing the creation of the iPad 3 article based on the sources that have confirmed that the event on March 7th will in fact be an announcement of the iPad 3. Its a no-brainer. All sources confirm this fact. Best to get started on the article stub and increase whats in it as more sources confirm that the event on the 7th will in fact be an announcement of the iPad 3. We don't even need to confirm that it is actually an iPad 3, but we can say exactly what the sources are saying, that "most people believe" that it will be. There is a majority of support to currently add this information into this article.-- JOJ Hutton  18:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I support this and will get to work on getting approval. Hghyux (talk) 21:11, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we could wait seven days and see what happens. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we can follow standard Wikipedia policy and follow the rules of Consensus.-- JOJ Hutton  22:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a gossip magazine. Per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V, we don't engage in parrotting of the speculations of the chattering classes of the media. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So we then definitely don't have a consensus. I really see no possible gain from not waiting another week. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:31, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Go ahead, I don't see any problem making an article, as it is going to be released in about a week anyways. All you need is sources, and theres plentiful. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 22:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or you could definitively avoid WP:CRYSTAL by waiting a week - or seeing whether we need an extra article at all or whether this one will do. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:39, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Or we could report the things that have already happened surrounding the iPad 3 "launch" invitations. Including the apple share price record that drove the Dow Jones Index to close above 13000 for the first time since the Global Financial Crisis as reported here. Just do a google news search for iPad 3 and you'll see that at least we should create an article about the March 7 media event as it has ALREADY recieved a HEAP of media coverage! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 23:28, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * If there is some content you can add here that is backed up by multiple high quality reliable sources I don't have a particular issue. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:43, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have prepared a userspace draft here Feel free to look over and change/expand as you see fit. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 00:14, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Its absolutely ridiculous to make an article about an event like that, that like creating an article about a press conference about a new car instead of an article about the car. I think it would be a lot better to make an article or section about iPad 3 and mention the press conference there as a line or two. Not an article. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 00:59, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The iPad 3 is NOT confirmed yet! They could just be launching an iPad 2S or a whole new device! Per that and WP:CRYSTAL an article about the event is the best way to go until the actual event happens and the announcement is made. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:01, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The name of the devise is less important. The fact that the device IS to be released, and the fact that its release is backed by numerous, reliable sources, makes it worthy an article and a section in this article. Dont try to undermine that by suggesting an article about the press conference instead. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 01:05, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * For all we know apple could be trolling us and just announce a re-release of the iPad 1! Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 01:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Really? That's your argument? Anyways, the iPhone 4S article was created weeks or even months before it was officially announced by Apple, furthermore it survived several AfD, I honestly don't see any reason why the article shouldn't be created - keep in mind this section is about the iPad 3 not about the purpose of the recently announced event. YuMaNuMa Contrib 02:12, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Discussion tag
I would suggest that the discussion tag on the main page be restored please. It is inappropriate to remove a discussion tag. Yes a discussion is taking place on this talk page. It does not surprise me that the two editors who have removed the tag are in fact against the proposal. That removal would show bad faith in the consensus process, and if not reinstated, may be taken to another discussion board.-- JOJ Hutton  16:33, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I see how a "split" proposal is appropriate here, as there doesn't seem to be any actual content about the iPad 3 which could be "split", and the above talk thread seems to be about simply creating a new article from whole cloth. Splitting is only relevant when "a section of an article has a length that is out of proportion to the rest of the article". There is no "it has been suggested that an article be created about a relevant subject" article template - if you want to suggest a new article and can't scare up any interest on a related talk page, try Requested articles, or just be WP:BOLD, find a couple of good sources and create it yourself. --McGeddon (talk) 16:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Only because a section on the iPad 3 keeps being removed. Users can't keep removing information about the iPad 3 from this article, then turn around and claim that a split tag is inappropriate because there no information about the iPad 3 in the article. See the cunumdrum? Also, there is plenty of other information in this article that would go into an iPad 3 article.-- JOJ Hutton  16:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Lets get a consensus to have content on the iPad 3 on the page first. I think that's a good idea. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:52, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. We can't have editors braking the third reverting rule, just because they disagree. If a user/users feels like being bold and creates a section/article with sources, users should not interfere and start a reverting war, this is basic wikipedia rules/guidelines. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 22:08, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

March 7 Apple Media Event
This article is up for deletion. The discussion is here. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 21:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that my userspace draft had been pirated so blatantly! I've sent the user who made that article a very stern message about article piracy. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 22:47, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Ipad 3 Confirmed
Source: http://content.usatoday.com/communities/technologylive/post/2012/03/live-coverage-apple-to-launch-the-next-ipad/1#.T1eoeTH2Y8z

--71.168.199.177 (talk) 18:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad 3 entry
Much as I am eager about iPad 3 too, shouldnt we wait for Apple to officially announce it before listing it on Wikipedia? A source from Bloomberg isnt qualifying very well for an entry. 202.156.11.11 (talk) 14:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sympathetic to this view. Thoughts? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 20:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

The redirect from iPad 3 just has to go, because as I read in a magazine, the iPad 3 will definitely be released this year. So please remove it. I do not know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Largerthanlife147 (talk • contribs) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Largerthanlife147 (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

I found some information onc CNN saying that "Apple will unveil the iPad on the first week of March".Apps for iPad 3: What Apple should demo at the grand unveiling--Nrpf22pr (talk) 15:37, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Just because Apple is the manufacturer (well, thats not entirely true either) doesn't mean that we have to wait for their announcement to create an iPad 3 article here on Wikipeadia. Any source will do, as long as it has credibility, and theres loads of them out there. iPad 3 is official. 83.108.197.56 (talk) 10:38, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I concur. The iPad 3 is all but confirmed. See http://www.techspot.com/news/47597-ipad-3-is-almost-official-apple-invites-media-to-march-7-event.html for pictures of the invites sent out for the March 7 event. Although apple could just be announcing an iPad 2S like they did with the iPhone 4S. Barts1a / What did I actually do right? / What did I do wrong this time? 11:04, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't here to report rumours and speculation. WP:SPECULATION It's a simple rule.

The world won't end if we wait seven days until the thing has actually been announced. AlistairMcMillan (talk) 13:53, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No the world won end, but its a safe bet to report what the reliable sources are already confirming. We can state that there is going to be an event and report the speculation of the reliable sources. Its not the end of the world if we do that.-- JOJ Hutton  17:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I have yet to see a reliable source about this supposed product launch. Apple has never pre-announced a product's launch before. Why should they start now? Remember all the heart-break over the iPhone 4S, when it was "supposed" to be an iPhone 5? This type of rumor has no place on Wikipedia, per WP:CRYSTAL. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Anything coming from Apple would be a primary source, but all other sources are secondary sources and confirm just what "was" written in the article. Which was that the iPad 3 will be announced next on the 7th of March. Thats not speculation, thats a fact backed up by reliable sources. Speculation would be the other stuff, like guessing what features iPad 3 will have.-- JOJ Hutton  18:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * And here are some sources you say you havn't seen: -- JOJ Hutton  18:22, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Exceptional claims require multiple high-quality sources, see WP:EXCEPTIONAL. These claims are very much outside the norm of Apple's usual behavior.
 * Those claims aren't exceptional, the iPad 1 and 2 have both been released around this time of year, but I guess it's how you define exceptional. YuMaNuMa Contrib 21:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the additional sources. All of those back up my position of "these are just rumors." Every one of those includes something like, "Apple (AAPL) invites the media to an event expected to be the introduction of a new iPad..." (emphasis added), or "Next week, the Cupertino company will unveil what most people believe is the iPad 3." (emphasis added), and the CNET article uses "likely" and "believed to be" multiple times. Sorry, but WP:CRYSTAL applies here, and it can't be included. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * So if everyone or most people believe this, and reliable sources believe this, why can't the section say that same thing? Its not speculation to say it, if ALL the reliable sources say it.-- JOJ Hutton  18:50, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The sources are speculating that the iPad 3 may be released. None of the sources say that it will be released on March 7th. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 18:54, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Never said that it would be released on March 7th, only said that it will be announced March 7th. The event, however, is a forgone conclusion, and per WP:Crystal, Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Not only notable, but its certain to take place.-- JOJ Hutton  19:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I see 8 in favor of adding this and only 2 oppose. This appears to be the current standing of editors who have commented on this thread so far.-- JOJ Hutton  22:20, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong!!!! This is still speculation. All we know is that there will be some kind of event on March 7th. Anything else is speculation, and should be kept out of Wikipedia per WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:26, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * No!!!! thats your opinion and you are welcome to it, but others have voiced that it is not speculation.-- JOJ Hutton  22:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Only by re-defining "speculation" out of all meaning. -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  22:37, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody is redefining anything, only stating what every single reliable source on the planet is saying. Nobody is arguing that it will not be the announcement of the iPad 3, but somehow we have to follow some guideline that is now somehow preventing us from even hinting at an iPad 3. I claim Ignore All Rules-- JOJ Hutton  22:40, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR in this kind of situation basically means you have no case. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:45, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * IAR is actually a valid point. The rest of the world wants more info about the iPad 3 and if we can create a Wikipedia article on it then it might improve Wikipedia MORE than if we don't create the article. Hghyux (talk) 14:36, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There's no doubt that the iPad 3 will be a very popular subject, if the editors of Wikipedia add speculated info even if it's source (most readers will have no idea what the numerals are for)which turns out to be incorrect, our reliability-reputation will no doubt be at further risk hence it would be a better choice to stay conservative at the moment. That isn't to say we can't add information about the upcoming event which is clearly inline with all of the other iPad releases in the previous years as long as we don't assert it as a definite fact. YuMaNuMa Contrib 03:53, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

Clearly the world won't end if we create it right now either, I see no harm in creating this article. Apple never releases dates that they are planning to release their products, but many sources suggest that it will be released March 7th. News corps have to find out this info from someplace.  Jay Jay Talk to me 22:33, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Here is an article from a very reputable source stating for a fact that the iPad 3 will be revealed.-- JOJ Hutton  16:51, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
 * You mean speculating. Because here are two sources that claim it will be called iPad HD when it is released., Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Two compared to about a billion that say iPad 3. In the end who cares what its called. Thats about a 5 second fix on Wednesday, compared to all the wasted time yoiu are personally spending on this very minor and small part of the article.-- JOJ Hutton  00:23, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Go ahead, stop wasting peoples' time. There is absolutely no reason any successor to the iPad 2 should be on Wikipedia until it exists. You are just making stuff up or reading something someone else made up and thinking it is real. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually it does exist. There are thousands sitting in shipping crates as we speak. Pictures have been released online. The design has been released online. All we don't know is the name, and thats only a matter of semantics. If it bothers you so much that this information is in the article, then don't read the article, but leave it to the rest of us who actually believe the reliable sources, and use common sense. You keep linking CRYSTAL, but in this case, this "guideline" is keeping us from actually improving Wikipedia.-- JOJ Hutton  00:42, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple's new iPad unveiled at $499 for 16 GB, available on Mar 16
-(http://www.hindustantimes.com/technology/Events/CEO-Tim-Cook-kicks-off-Apple-s-iPad-unveiling-event/SP-Article1-822462.aspx)

Apple on Wednesday unveiled a new iPad with a higher resolution display and an updated version of the Apple TV box used to stream movies, TV shows and other content from the Internet to TV sets. Pricing for new iPad: $499 for 16GB, $599 for 32GB & $699 64GB versions. $129 more for

4G.

The new iPad screen features 264 pixels per inch, providing the best display ever on a mobile device, Apple executives said during a product presentation in San Francisco broadcast live to reporters in London.

The new iPad -- the third version of the touchscreen tablet computer introduced in April 2010 -- also features a five-megapixel camera and high-definition video recording.

The new Apple TV box will sell for the same $99 price as the previous model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.129.27 (talk) 19:12, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Time to create article for original iPad
Now that the new iPad has been announced, I think it's time to create a new article called iPad (original) for the first version of the iPad, similar to the iPhone (original) to differentiate with iPhone which is about the product line as a whole. Richiekim (talk) 19:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * On the contrary, the lack of a suffix (it's not the iPad 3 or iPad HD) implies that Apple is treating the iPad more like a Mac, with the differences in hardware being downplayed. Not every generation needs an article. We should discuss the best way forward, which may be to have a model comparison section or separate page. In my opinion, articles should be split off the hold content, rather than created hoping adequate quality and quantity content will be created. Of course, this will happen in a few weeks when the fanboyism dies down. HereToHelp (talk to me) 19:49, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * If that's the case, then perhaps we should merge the 2nd & 3rd generation iPad articles into this one then?Richiekim (talk) 03:03, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Apple Unveils New iPad With 4G LTE
(-http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204603004577267441821060940.html)

(-http://newbestgadget.com/tablet/ipad-3-review) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bagusrifai (talk • contribs) 10:31, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.226.129.27 (talk) 19:03, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

iPad (3rd Gen) Release note
I'd like to propose the following be appended to the iPad 3rd gen note, given the court action and Apple offering refunds to any who expected support of 4G speeds in Australia.
 * The Australian release of the 3rd generation model was marred by its 4G capability not matching the only available domestic 4G frequency (iPad uses LTE on 700 & 2100Mhz frequencies, whereas both Telstra and Optus LTE rollouts in Australia use 1800Mhz).

--Gth-au (talk) 14:39, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong article, you are looking for the IPad (3rd generation) article. Acps110 (talk • contribs) 15:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Clumsy wording
What on earth does this mean, and is there possibly a better way to word it? "The second screen expression is a consequence of the media multitasking which is doing well." 50.0.80.184 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That sentence makes absolutely no sense by itself. Zach Vega (talk) 05:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed! While I'm not responsible for the sentence as it stands, I'll try rewriting it for clarity.StandardPerson (talk) 22:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I tried to replace the existing final sentence with the following, but the page is "semi-protected." Hence I'll try what follows. I believe that my change is clearer, but it may be too long.

Edit semi-protected /* Replaced confusing use of "Second Screen" as discussed on Talk Page */

The iPad has also greatly increased Social Television use. Viewers can use the iPad as a convenient second networked computer (or "second screen") for communicating with other viewers or with the television provider. Viewers can use a web browser or specialised applications to discuss a program with other viewers, while it is being broadcast, while content providers may use the second screen to interact with viewers in real time. The latter facility allows content providers to conduct (e.g.) real-time polls or to collect comments about the program, that can be displayed as text on the main television screen. Viewer interaction via a second screen is becoming increasingly popular. StandardPerson (talk) 00:00, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Please replace "Social Television " with "Social Television" StandardPerson (talk) 02:08, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Acps110 (talk • contribs) 02:16, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

History of name
It seems to me that this article is missing the history name of Ipad like why did they name it Ipad? What is the meaning of the word? Stories behind it...? I found a link that perhaps can satisfy it a little bit here but due to my crappy writing skill. I won't able to write it according to standard! So someone should use this link i provided to add this information. I'm sure some readers will interesting in reading it!65.128.159.201 (talk) 04:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That article is about the iPod ;). -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:56, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Split
Dear Fellow Wikipedians, This page should be split into two iPad and IPad (original), just like the IPhone page. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 05:58, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly support – Why didn't we do this earlier? Zach Vega (talk to me) 06:05, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay, so please put a message that it has been discussed that it should be split on the page. Regards. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Zach Vega (talk to me) 15:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Support – It is necessary for making iPad an adequate article --Dj777cool (talk) 18:51, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Guess what I just found Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

@Zach Vega I have left a message on the talk page of the one that made the redirect, hope he will participate in the discussion. TheChampionMan1234 (talk) 02:19, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose (but I am prepared to change my mind) this wasn't done earlier because there wasn't enough material. Are we really in a position where there is enough material to split out for such an old device? -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 22:07, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * To expand there was an issue initially with the iPad 2 article initially where it really had very, very little unique content. It seems like iPad 3 is a GA, so its a much higher standard than iPad 2 was initially. I am worried that if we create an iPad (original) article it will go down the same route as the iPad 2 article did, rather than how the iPad 3 article went, which is to a much higher standard. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 07:57, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not that I'm supporting or opposing this split but the iPad article was promoted to GA status in June 2010, 2 months after the original iPad was initially released. I would imagine that the content in the article at the time entirely revolved around the original iPad hence, I don't think lack of sources would be a problem. If most of the links in the June 2010 version of this article was dead then the article at its current state would certainly be demoted but that's not the case so I'm assuming otherwise. YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Lack of sources wasn't the issue, the issue was lack of unique prose - as you can see from the link in my last comment there was surprisingly little useful prose in iPad 2 at that point.
 * My worry about creating an iPad (original) article is that it won't contain any useful additional information that isn't already covered by this article, if enough effort is going to be taken to avoid that issue then I have no objection. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 17:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be like the iPhone article. Zach Vega  ( talk to me ) 22:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding my redirect of that article, if you read my edit comment, you'd see that I did it because someone just copy and pasted the iPad article to iPad (original). If you're going to split, then be sure to sandbox the new article first and take note of what needs to be removed from the original article so we don't just end up with a second article as a fork of the first, but rather two articles that complement each other nicely. Gary King ( talk  ·  scripts )  02:33, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have historically been opposed to these kinds of splits due to the replication of prose. There's so much in common with these devices that there become wide swaths of identical text, which diverge over time due to copyedits, new sources, old sourcing link rotting, and so on. If you take the iPhone route, with an overview and daughter pages, you can sometimes have good content allowed to flourish on the daughter pages. I recommend this approach. If there is not enough content, merge all the model-specifc pages and perhaps cover the History of (the?) iPad and retain iPad as a general overview. The key thing to remember is that form follows function, rather than dictating how content must be arranged. Be flexible and willing to change your mind when you see something does not work. Also, this really shouldn't be a vote but rather a discussion to forge consensus on the best way forward. HereToHelp (talk to me) 02:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

inaccuracies from the outset
quote "Like iPhone and iPod Touch, the iPad is controlled by a multitouch display—a departure from most previous tablet computers, which used a pressure-triggered stylus—as well as a virtual onscreen keyboard in lieu of a physical keyboard." (sic)

This is an extremely vague sentance. Did previous tablet computers rely on either a stylus and or physical keyboard, both or neither? Some had neither. The example that springs to mind is the Amtek iTablet T221. Released in 2007, it looks very much like the 2010 ipad but predates it significantly. It had a capacitive screen, ran vista, but reled on finger input and not stylus and or physical keyboard.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/10/hands-on-with-amteks-itablet-t221/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.56.10 (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not really convinced you can use Windows at the moment (except 8) without a stylus. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

why does searching for the itablet point one here
In 2007 Amtek released two iTablets, one of which was a capactive screen. If i search for it I am pointed to the ipad article.

Ironically it mentions that iTablet was a possible name for the 2010 apple device. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.175.129.238 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there a Wikipedia article on this iTablet? If so assuming that tablet is the most common usage of iTablet then the redirect can be changed. -- Eraserhead1 &lt;talk&gt; 23:53, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Could somebody please fix this?
Shouldn't this...: ...be this:

In case you are wondering why I can't do it myself, this page is semi-protected so I cannot make the change at this time.

–– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 04:54, 26 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ - You are correct, i have tweaked this. Thanks for letting us know. --JetBlast (talk) 07:28, 26 September 2012 (UTC)
 * –– 76.10.241.86 (talk) 15:26, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Operating system
Under Technical specifications:

Operating system	iOS 5.1.1	iOS 5.1.1 / iOS 6.0[97]

Please change it to:

Operating system	iOS 5.1.1	iOS 6.0[97]

(remove the second "iOS 5.1.1" since iOS 6 has been released)

–– Anonymouse321 (talk) 05:19, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Fixed it myself since I just got auto-confirmed. –– Anonymouse321 (talk) 05:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Help needed: new info for this article
The book The Mobile Wave includes some information that I believe would be a good addition to this page. The book's author is the founder of MicroStrategy, where I work, and I'm here on behalf of the company. I won't make any edits related to the book because of this conflict of interest and would like to ask if someone else could add the information below into the article?

1. To add to the end of the "History", "First generation" section:


 * According to Bernstein Research, sales of the first generation iPad placed it "on track to become the fastest growing consumer product in history".

2. To add to the "Reception", "Reviews" section (highlighted info is new):


 * Reviews of the iPad have been generally favorable. Walt Mossberg of The Wall Street Journal called it a "pretty close" laptop killer. David Pogue of The New York Times wrote a "dual" review, one part for technology-minded people, and the other part for non-technology-minded people. In the former section, he notes that a laptop offers more features for a cheaper price than the iPad. In his review for the latter audience, however, he claims that if his readers like the concept of the device and can understand what its intended uses are, then they will enjoy using the device. PC Magazine's Tim Gideon wrote, "you have yourself a winner" that "will undoubtedly be a driving force in shaping the emerging tablet landscape." Michael Arrington of TechCrunch said, "the iPad beats even my most optimistic expectations. This is a new category of device. But it also will replace laptops for many people." PC World criticized the iPad's file sharing and printing abilities, and ArsTechnica said sharing files with a computer is "one of our least favorite parts of the iPad experience."

Citation:

I welcome help from any interested editors and am also open to other ideas about where information from this book can be added on Wikipedia, if it provides new and informative details. Thanks, --Rkrueger (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Please feel free to add to the article anything you think may be useful. However, be aware that this is an encyclopaedia, so we can't be biased towards a particular opinion, neither can we advertise a book or product. drewmunn (talk) 17:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Giving the original iPad its own article?
With the additions and expansions of the articles of the new iPads announced today, I noticed that the original iPad is only described within the article of the entire line, whereas the other generations are each given their own article. My suggestion is that the original iPad be given its own individual article at iPad (original) to replace the current redirect and reformat the current iPad article to detail more about the product line in general, much like iPhone (original) and iPhone. These two are formatted in such a way to present one as the overall line, while the other elaborates on the specifications of the generation. Any suggestions or other ideas? 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 1) Strong support – I definitely think the iPad original needs an article to shorten the main article and maintain consistency with the iPhone articles. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely. Maybe iPad (1st generation) for consistency? Ausir (talk)
 * ✅ - iPad (1st generation) T. trichiura Infect me 15:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Ipad mini?
Why does ”Ipad mini” redirect to this article? There is no mention of ”Ipad Mini” in the article? gnirre (talk) 14:04, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Rather odd, i have listed it for deletion See here --JetBlast (talk) 16:06, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * It's because the mini/smaller iPad is rumoured to be launched soon. Somebody has created the article on the basis of speculation/rumour, and the article has been deleted and redirected to iPad. Go ahead and get it deleted, but some dickhead will be along shortly to re-create it. --Biker Biker (talk) 19:20, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Why can't the rumour be in here? Ipad Mini is not a fact, but the rumour exists, and that's a fact. I came here looking for info on this Ipad Mini everyone was talking about, and I would have appreciated being told that it was just a rumour. gnirre (talk) 08:03, 17 October 2012 (UTC).


 * Encyclopaedias don't list every rumour in existence, this isn't an index of the internet. Until there's something solid about the iPad mini, it shouldn't be listed here. And by solid, I mean official, not that everyone's talking about it. I agree the iPad Mini page/redirect should be deleted. drewmunn (talk) 10:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure if you got what I meant. The rumour in itself is solid. A solid rumour. The Ipad Mini – not solid. The rumour about Ipad Mini – solid. The rumour in itself is a fact. Facts have a place in encyclopedias. Especially facts that probably have had tens of thousands peopla coming here for information, but walking away disappointed. If I come here looking for info on Ipad Mini, and find no info at all on Ipad Mini, I do not conclude that Ipad Mini is a rumour. I conclude that Wikipedia is broken.81.230.6.118 (talk) 10:09, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * There are already rumours about the iPhone 6, but there's no mention of it on Wikipedia. The issue with your thinking is that there would be an infinite number of pages created for things that don't exist. Similarly, what could you write beyond 'there are rumours of an iPad mini'? Adding any rumoured specs would lead into the realm of original research and fiction, both of which cannot be included here. If you added such a statement here, then you would open the floodgates to every single product listed in any way on wikipedia having a clause added stating 'there are rumours that a new version of X will be released'; there's always someone out there who's written a blog post about a new version of everything. As I said previously, this would relegate Wikipedia to an index of the internet, listing every topic ever discussed; that's what search engines are for. In any case, the Apple Event is tomorrow, so we'll have something solid to add after that. drewmunn (talk) 11:41, 22 October 2012 (UTC)


 * I am happy to finally see info on Ipad Mini in Wikipedia. The issue is still if Wikipedia in the future will continue to have large holes where visitors expect information. If Wikipedia will censor rumors, at the very least this should be indicated in the article. I am guessing this policy to avoid covering rumours is probably a pose that some Wikipedia editors believe will convey Wikipedia as more "serious". It doesn't work. The lack of info is a frustration for people coming here. The lack of info conveys ignorance. drewmunn: your reasoning is full of hyperbole and proves nothing of practical significance. I'd like to see your argument with less rhetoric. gnirre (talk) 09:00, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

The iPad mini was officially announced, so this is no longer an issue. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Out of date information after fourth gen release
Since the release of "The New iPad" third generation iPad some information contained in this article has been incorrect, such as references to Bluetooth 2.1+EDR under Audio and output.

With the release of the iPad 4 ad iPad Mini many more sections seem to require significant rewrite, such as Optional accessories due to the implementation of Apple's Lightning connector. 70.75.81.177 (talk) 14:41, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Restructuring?
The article in its current form seems to be a bit lengthy and out of date, with the announcement of the new iPads yesterday. Might it be time to reorganize the article to follow the format of the iPhone product line article? We've taken the first step and established a separate article for the first-generation iPad, now would seem like a good time to go through the article and clean up redundancies and make updates where needed. 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:13, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

iPad sales graphic
Jeffme (talk) 06:48, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is it in the section about "Screen and Input"?
 * Where did it come from? There's no source identified.


 * I have no idea where it is coming from. It also has a rather odd file name. I am still investigating... –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:07, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Actually, it's meant to be in the History section (that's where to code for it is). However, due to bad formatting, it appears in a different place depending on what device/ screen size you're viewing the page on. For me (viewing it on iPad), it appears between the Third Generation and Fourth Generation sections. I can't find who added it, as it's mixed up in all of the 4th Gen and mini edits somewhere, but there's no source provided that I can find. I suggest it's removed, and if it's re-added, it's done so using formatting that puts it somewhere that it's meant to be. The Reception or Usage section may be best, as it doesn't really fit in the History section; it covers every version of the iPad, but the History section splits down into individual models. drewmunn (talk) 07:14, 25 October 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, I see it now; at first I though it was an image, but it's a timeline graphic. I moved it to the usage section. –– Anonymouse321 (talk • contribs) 07:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

The presence or absence of the word "telephone"
Let me explain: you come to this article to find out whether this device can be used as a mobile phone, and you start a simple search for the token "telephon" (in case all there is is "telephony", not "telephone"), and you get no hits. What're you gonna do? Try searching for "phone", fall asleep while going through all the instances of "iphone", "headphone", "microphone", et.al., missing the one instance which answers your question, which uses the phrase "mobile phone"? A text search of space-separated tokens often fails, and is more complicated anyway.

Besides, the term "mobile phone" is questionable too. Although it is my preferred one, say, over "cell phone", it still lacks in clarity when it comes to reference material such as an encyclopedia. "phone" can be anything which has to do with audio. "telephone" suffers much less from such ambiguity. There is NOTHING wrong with using the phrase "mobile telephone". --Jerome Potts (talk) 18:56, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi Jerome. Your example actually suggests that the phrase "mobile phone" is more appropriate than "mobile telephone". If, as you say, "you come to this article to find out whether this device can be used as a mobile phone", then you would likely search for "mobile phone" and not "mobile telephone".  (That's your example.)  Additionally, the phrase is shorter, expresses the identical concept, and the title of the defining article here on Wikipedia is mobile phone, not mobile telephone.  Enough said.  I agree with you that "mobile telephone" is not actually *wrong*, so I won't revert again and I will let other editors chime in.  Cheers.  --Ds13 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi all, I've decided to chip in with my opinion. According to my Oxford dictionary, the term 'Mobile Phone' is acceptable, whilst 'Mobile Telephone' does not appear at all. In addition, I'd never cmd+f for the phrase telephone, and I asked some other people what they'd look for. Consensus in my mini-survey suggest people would look for the words 'mobile', 'phone', and 'call'. Nobody I asked said telephone, so I think it's a little redundant. drewmunn (talk) 22:38, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

citation 13
The mention that iPad has 700,000 apps available is not correct. In this page: http://www.apple.com/ipad/from-the-app-store/, apple mentions 275,000 apps optimized for ipad. And the citation 13 would be invalid in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Describeit (talk • contribs) 17:45, 16 December 2012 (UTC)


 * The 700,000 figure includes iPhone/iPod Touch applications, which the iPad can also run. The 275,000 figure is applications which are "optimized" for iPad, which is a subset of the overall number of applications available to run on the device. Both figures are correct, as they are different things. Bonusballs (talk) 18:05, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thinking ahead
I suppose at some point we may have to move iPad Mini to iPad Mini (1st generation) when its successor comes out. iPad Mini could become the parent page for both or at least become a disambiguation page. Keep iPad as the brand page for both and start the iPad (9-inch) article (merge some of the future lesser 9-inch iPad generations into this one). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 08:32, 23 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, we will just have to wait and see what Apple does!  The Anonymouse  ( talk  •  contribs ) [ Merry Christmas! ] 20:44, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Update Taskforce
I think we need to quickly form an update taskforce for this article before it gets demoted due to the outdated-ness of the content. It's a fairly big and probably tedious task as almost every section ranging from hardware, software and maybe even reception needs to be update, not to mentioned the inadequateness of the lead.

Issues that need to be resolved:
 * No information on the LTE capability of some of the devices. (Storage and SIM)
 * No information on the retina displays in some of the devices. Furthermore information regarding the screen only goes up the iPad 2. (Screen and input)
 * No information on the lightning connector, which was introduced to the most recent iPad devices. (Accessories)
 * Lacks information on iOS version 5 and beyond. (Software)
 * Like most other good consumer technology articles, some information on sales figures is quite crucial if it can be obtain, this article hasn't fully omitted the sales figures as there's a clear image depicting a graph with the figures, however the prose does't mention anything about it. (Reception)
 * The lead, which is about 5 lines long obviously inadequately summarises the article, which contains about 100,000 characters.

I will try to pitch in and help but from the looks of the task, it may take an editor several days to expand, reference and copyedit, and many hands do make light work! YuMaNuMa Contrib 09:26, 28 December 2012 (UTC)


 * To address the problem with the introduction, I followed the format of the iPhone introduction and added the key features that each generation introduced, as well as some minor corrections to the existing material. Hope that solved the issue. 68DANNY2 (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 January 2013, no. Gps in ipad mini wifi edition
The ipad mini wifi edition does not have any GPS/GLONASS which you might get the impression of in the model comparison table in the article. http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/specs/

176.10.210.202 (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2013 (UTC) Please delete, comparison tabe is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.10.210.202 (talk) 16:23, 2 January 2013 (UTC)


 * ❌ I think the table already makes it clear that GPS/GLONASS are only for the 3G/4G models: The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 16:49, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

sales over time chart
It would be great if the article would include a chart that shows the sales over time, like vchartz does for game consoles.--78.48.37.16 (talk) 06:39, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the graph in the usage section is enough and to be honest, I find line graphs for this sort of quarterly data to be inaccurate and potentially misleading. YuMaNuMa Contrib 07:02, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The problem with this chart is that it doesn't differentiate between the various modells.--78.48.102.53 (talk) 06:30, 10 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Well this article is about the iPad in general. While editing generation specific iPad articles, it was quite difficult for me to get yearly data let alone quarterly, the only sales data that was widely available are ones on the first weekend of sales. However if you do find a reliable source with the figures then by all means add it to this and generation specific articles. YuMaNuMa Contrib 06:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request: Reviews section
I would like the following sentence to be edited:

"However, the Android tablet OS, known as 'Honeycomb', is not open source and has fewer apps available for it than for the iPad."

It looks like it was last updated over 1½ years ago, making the information outdated. Since then a new major version is out, Android 4.0 "Ice Cream Sandwich", the source code has been released and Google Play now has a special section for tablet apps, making the claim of "fewer apps available" questionable as the number of apps have been growing.

I suggest deleting the entire sentence.

http://www.techspot.com/news/46260-source-code-for-android-30-and-40-released.html

--81.233.34.70 (talk) 20:00, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 18 January 2013
An Ipad is a new development in technology from Apple.

96.225.77.140 (talk) 23:37, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
 * The first generation iPad was released more about three years ago, that's hardly considered new. YuMaNuMa Contrib 23:53, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 28 January 2013
Remove "not" from the statement "Digital rights advocates including the Free Software Foundation, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and computer engineer and activist Brewster Kahle, have not criticized the iPad for its digital rights restrictions." A Google search shows that all these people have indeed critized the iPad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.52.99.92 (talk)


 * ✅ YuMaNuMa Contrib 10:04, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 January 2013
Inside an infobox, can someone change  to   and remove two repeated links to ARM? "ARM" is now redirecting to Arm (disambiguation), and is not the primary meaning for ARM architecture.

24.6.164.7 (talk) 06:25, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done --Jnorton7558 (talk) 06:42, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * It should be only one link to ARM architecture. Please unlink the other two in the infobox. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 06:47, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Is it better now? The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 07:03, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


 * Thank you. --24.6.164.7 (talk) 07:06, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Updated ambiguous language
The image of the Newton had a caption "The very first tablet". I updated it to "Apple's very first tablet" as per History_of_tablet_computers Gbickford (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

4th generation
There is no actual 4th generation iPad yet! Just an addition to 3rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:610:1908:8000:496A:578D:DB46:3B70 (talk) 16:08, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
 * No, there is a 4th generation. It looks the same as the 3rd, which dropped the numbering system used for the iPad 2. However, the latest iteration is the 4th generation. drewmunn talk 16:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
"{{sidebar" tags malformed at beginning of article, and needs to be cleaned up. Revclyde (talk) 12:40, 23 March 2013 (UTC)


 * It took me a while to figure out what had happened, but it turns out that someone had [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:IPad_models&diff=546122837&oldid=519685372 vandalized] {{tl|iPad models}}. Thanks for the note! The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 16:45, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

"Upcoming" Section
The one thing that I see nothing about on this page is that there are no rumors or release dates for future generations of the iPad. It could include information and rumors about the iPad Mini 2 and the iPad 5 that are supposed to come out later this year. You could use sites such as CNET.com and Macworld.com to keep the rumors and release dates updated. Mjepting (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Sambrie (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Julzmag (talk) 18:44, 25 April 2013 (UTC) Musiclover8604 (talk) 18:45, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Also, why did three additional users sign this comment? The Anonymouse (talk &#124; contribs) 18:50, 25 April 2013 (UTC)


 * Ok, I can understand that since it is an encyclopedia and thanks for sending me to that article to clarify things. This is a group project for one of my IT classes which is why there are 3 signatures on it. Mjepting (talk) 19:01, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Prior art for patent of rectangle

 * http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/07/apple_ipad_tomorrow_people/
 * http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2402616,00.asp

Why no mention of the Apple patents on the shape of the gizmo? Hcobb (talk) 15:04, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
The article says "Within 90 days of its release, the iPad managed to penetrate 50% of Fortune 100 companies." This is WP:CHERRY-PICKING of the most positive sentence in the citation, the cited text actually goes on to state: Some IT leaders believe that while the iPad adoption rate was rapid, it was also superficial. This view was widespread among IT leaders I spoke with... the fact that 50 percent of FORTUNE 100 have adopted the iPad is a gross overstatement. Yes, we have iPads in the organization but that does not mean widespread adoption nor that iPads are being used for daily processes. They work great for ‘consuming’ information that is available to the ‘consumer.’ They do not work well for creating information.

So to help balance out the current non-NPOV text, I propose changing it to "Within 90 days of its release, the iPad managed to penetrate 50% of Fortune 100 companies, however, the widespread view of IT leaders is that while the iPad adoption rate was rapid, it was also superficial.". 2.121.109.88 (talk) 18:24, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * The fact is, that 50% of the companies were using them. All we're doing there is stating fact. If we add in the beliefs held by other people, then we're biasing towards one view. At the current time, we're listing a statistic. I don't, however, like the use of penetrate, so I might change that... drewmunn talk 19:15, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Do you think that it is OK to cherry pick the positive like that and not mention any of the negatives? It just seems misleading to mention the 50% thing without providing any context. Fortune 100 companies are huge, buying a few iPads isn't that big a deal. 94.192.95.24 (talk) 22:48, 20 May 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't say that every employee in every one of those companies used them, just that 50% of F100 companies has bought some. It's not necessarily a positive note, just a performance based one. We don't, for instance, say that, although a TV programme was watched by 8.2 million people, it doesn't count because at least 5 million had it on in the background and weren't paying attention. We list the numbers. drewmunn talk 06:23, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
 * I'll call bullshit, and will agree with the IP editor. drewmunn, the sentence as it stands does not present an adequate summary of the source in a neutral way. Market penetration is defined as "A measure of the amount of sales or adoption of a product or service compared to the total theoretical market for that product or service. The amount of sales or adoption can be an individual company's sale or industry while the theoretical market can be the total population or an estimate of total potential consumers for the product."  If the total potential consumers of the product was one iPad per Fortune 100 consumer, then one could claim 50% market penetration.  Anything else is POV pushing.  For that reason, I feel that the sentence should be altered as proposed by 2.121.109.88, or eliminated entirely.  Drew, the choice is yours, but either way, it cannot stand as-is.   — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 15:41, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request
The first two paragraphs of the History sections seems to be totally irrelevant. What does something Steve Jobs said in 1983 have anything to do with the history of IPad? Please delete the first two paragraphs of the History section. They are only relevant to people who are in the reality distortion field.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please tell me why the quote doesn't relate to the iPad. To quote it, it says, "What we want to do is we want to put an incredibly great computer in a book that you can carry around with you and learn how to use in 20 minutes". Does that remind you of something? buffbills7701 22:38, 12 September 2013 (UTC)

The iPad is a PDA?
I'm a little amused that after all these years, Wikipedia is still calling the iPad a PDA. Who, besides us, still uses that term and why is it being used here when a better classification such as "tablet" exists?? Time to let it die. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 20:09, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * According to a search, the term is used within the iPad article only once, and that is describing a Newton device, which was a PDA. At no point within the article is the iPad referred to anything other than a tablet. drewmunn talk 20:44, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * I'm referring to the category linked in my comment. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Software
The Gizmodo article linked to support the text "the iPad only runs its own software, software downloaded from Apple's App Store, and software written by developers who have paid for a developer's license on registered devices." does not actually enumerate the exact ways software can be installed, so I put in a failed verification tag. Not sure if that was quite the right thing to do there.Artificialintel (talk) 15:51, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: iPad mini details
Model Comparison section:

Model: 'iPad Mini (2nd generation)' should read 'iPad mini with Retina display' (note the lower case 'm' for 'mini'). Source: http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/

Release Date: for the 'iPad mini with Retina display' is not November 1, 2013. Release is currently an unknown date in November. Source: http://www.apple.com/ipad-mini/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Douglasabailey (talk • contribs) 00:15, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: iPad Mini 2 relese date
It'd be worth rewording the text in the article that only the Air has been relesed today (the first); the iPad mini 2 has a relese date of 'later in november'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.56.86.36 (talk) 12:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Edit Request: iPad and iPad mini dimensions
iPad 2 depth is 8.8 mm, not 9 mm. iPad 3 and 4 both have a depth of 9.4 mm, not 9 mm. iPad mini (first gen) has a depth of 7.2 mm, not 7 mm. iPad mini with Retina display has a depth of 7.5 mm, not 7 mm. I verified all measurements with Apple's own documentation. I realize these are small differences, but they are important differences nevertheless. Source: http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/  Rushbc (talk) 23:53, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox generation gap
In a recent edit, I changed an infobox label that stuck out like a sore thumb – I'm referring to the simple and seemingly-incongruous "2" that stands in place of "2nd generation". Jimthing, with the comment, "it's 'iPad 2' NOT 'iPad (2nd generation)'!". Under WP:BRD, I bring this discussion.

I'm sorry, but the above argument does not hold water. There is no dispute that the "iPad 2" is the second generation iPad. The following facts are equally undisputed:
 * it's "iPad", not "iPad (1st generation)"
 * it's "The new iPad", not "iPad (3rd generation)"
 * it's "iPad with Retina display", not "iPad (4th generation)"

Now, I wouldn't want the infobox labels (and article titles) to change as above – to do so would be absurd. However, for an encyclopedia to hold steadfast to a company's marketing gimmick-du-jour for only a single model, while abandoning them for the rest of the models is doubly absurd. The current labeling scheme ("1st generation", "2", "3rd generation", etc.) employs "2" as a meaningless contrivance that constitutes WP:OR. I therefore feel that we must be consistent, and must decide whether to have the cake or to eat it. — Groll &tau;ech  ( talk ) 15:24, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Sorry but no, your conclusions are incorrect. To start with, the 3rd gen is also a Retina Display. More importantly, the BRANDING in initial marketing is not the same as what the models are referred to by Apple in documentation to start with, and this has been discussed ad nauseam now across Apple pages on WP – I know, because I spend A LOT of my time correcting them from some users who continually mislabel them. "iPad 2" is NOT "marketing gimmick-du-jour", but it most certainly IS what THAT model is actually called, and most certainly therefore is nothing concerned with WP:OR (if Apple chose to name the 5th gen "iPad Super 5" then that's what WP will name the article, and refer to the model across the site in naming infoboxes – we don't stick to one scheme just because it looks neater!). And as per WP guidelines that's what should be used as the FIRST OPTION WP:NC, which is exactly what has been done here, as there is nothing blocking the site from having to name it something else.


 * If you also bothered to check across various iPad pages talk archives, WP users have already decided time and time again what the correct terms are, which is to use naming which is clear to users as best to what the models are actually called, as using terms such as "The new iPad" are obviously not going to work LONGTERM across an encyclopedia, but neither is misnaming it "iPad (2nd generation)" either, which may confuse many users as to the models correct name. Hence the article pages are called, and are referred to across the site, thus:


 * iPad – general page about all models.
 * iPad (1st generation)
 * iPad 2 – it is NOT named "iPad (2nd generation)", whether we like it or not!
 * iPad (3rd generation) – this is ALSO a Retina Display model, BTW, against what you said above.
 * iPad (4th generation)


 * Hence, that's more correct than referring it as "iPad (2nd generation)" which it isn't, when NAMING the product in an infobox which always using NAMING and not generations, when referring to the model directly. Outside of this, when using prose in a sentence, we can in addition chose to refer to them all as generational, such as saying "the iPad 2 was the second generation of iPad", which follows a different usage under WP guidelines. So please just follow them accordingly, and move on. Jimthing (talk) 19:20, 5 September 2013 (UTC)


 * What about adding a column in the features table "Original marketing name", as some users may have the devices labeled with the names as they were used when they bought one? The sequence so far should be: iPad, iPad 2, The new iPad, iPad with Retina Display, iPad, iPad Air. It is certainly more confusing than generations, as there are duplicates and "the new" had also Retina, but ignoring/hiding this confusion is less helpful than to document it properly . --Jaakl (talk) 07:16, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

iPad Mini
I was just wondering if it is necessary to have the iPad Mini in this iPad article. The iPad Mini is its own line and does not need to be with the normal iPad line page since it is different in lots of ways, especially size. The iPad Mini is not a subline. Just because the iPhone is similar to the iPad Mini by maker and materials used (maybe design a little bit) would not mean it is a subline of the iPad Mini. I think that the information about the iPad Mini should be removed. Mentioning that Apple created a line of smaller versions of the iPad is fine though, just as long as there is not a lot of in-depth info and details about the iPad Mini. Secret Agent Julio (My Talk Page) 16:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
 * At some point there should be an article exclusively about the full-size iPad line. Only downside is that we'll be in the awkward position of having 10 articles for only seven iPad models. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 03:37, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Better picture needed
Isn't File:IPad_Air.png a rather lifeless picture? Jidanni (talk) 16:05, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

Units Sold
Anyone have any current links on the units sold? The number in the infobox, 190 million, has a citation that's a year out of date. 98.124.11.105 (talk) 21:54, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
 * As a matter of fact, I do. 170 million. The old NYT reference only accounted for 100 million so I'm guessing an editor tried to extrapolate how many were sold to date and came up with a wonky number. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 98.124.11.105 (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

The new correct amount of units sold is 195,000,000 million per Q1 results. http://www.talkingnewmedia.com/2014/01/27/apple-revenue-growth-slows-though-quarter-is-a-record-for-ipad-sales/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.108.57.83 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Naming convention
We've had some moving and renaming of articles and links over the past two months, all without discussion. , and  were the ones making the moves. While there's no MoS that deals with this issue, there is WP:ORDINAL that states: And at least one discussion is related to this: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Archive 68 and states that 1st should be avoided in preference for first. WP:MOSDATE doesn't allow for its use in dates such as January 1st 1111. Although Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers allows for use of 1st, provided that it isn't superscripted and for centuries, only use of 1st is permitted. What should the naming convention be? Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words
 * Integers greater than nine expressible in one or two words may be expressed either in numerals or in words (16 or sixteen, 84 or eighty-four, 200 or two hundred).


 * I agree with ORDINAL.  g s k  18:29, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Jimthing raised an issue over whether these are proper nouns. From a quick look at apple.com, Apple appear to use numerals, e.g. "iPad (3rd generation)". Since this coincides with the MOS, broadly seen, I think numerals are the best way to go. --Tóraí (talk) 20:54, 4 February 2014 (UTC)


 * I performed the page moves mentioned above back in December because (1) I strongly believe the articles should follow a consistent naming convention, whatever that may be, and (2) I was under the [apparently false] impression that a consensus had been reached [somewhere] that "first," "second," "third," etc. would be used in place of "1st," "2nd," "3rd," etc. Since that was apparently not the case, and this subject is now up for discussion, please allow me to weigh in on the side of "1st," "2nd," "3rd," etc. I realize WP:ORDINAL seems to favor the opposite approach, but I believe a case can be made that these names (with "1st," etc.) are all proper names, which [I believe] would trump ORDINAL. Apple literature, when it actually uses "generation" in the name of a product, always seems to use "1st," etc. Third-party literature seems to follow the same convention. So I believe the use of numerals in these article names would be the best way to go. Jdaloner (talk) 10:09, 5 February 2014 (UTC)


 * To clarify my reasoning for reverting to the previous "numeral ordinals" (i.e. 1st, 2nd, etc.), I did so as I found no proper discussion about the changes on the various Apple-related talk pages, which given the larger implications (I go into below), should most definitely have been completed first.
 * I think there are a number of reasons to stick with the current numerals (1st, 2nd, etc.), some to comply with WP guidelines in some way or another, some for practical considerations, and some for historical implications – obviously it's up to others here to think about all of these points and decide whether you think they are important or not.


 * Firstly, these are not dates, so any previous WP discussions related to use in regard to dates is invalid, and others state a preference for words and not an absolute. Secondly, a great many articles already written here going back to years ago have previously used numerals (both as article title, articles section subtitles, never mind the thousands of other mentions within articles themselves), now while this doesn't preclude re-editing them all, doing so is still nonetheless a massive undertaking and achieves very little in improving understanding, and WP still allows the use of spelt-out words for these (that can be used along with numerals versions in other places) in article prose anyway (e.g. "...the fourth generation iPad introduced new features, including..."). But this doesn't mean using spelt-out words would be good to use in most other places. For example, on more practical levels, in places like tables (e.g. Infobox's, for example as seen on this iPad page, and a great many others) the use of words would be impractical as by adding a huge addition of characters to spell out the generation number would make the ease of reading worse and thus the reader comprehending the differences between generations of device much more difficult. Also, related to this issue, there are complicated pages where spelling out the generation would make the comprehension MUCH worse and would likely lead to many more errors on pages (e.g. IOS version history).


 * But even more important than these, is related to the proper nouns argument. Apple's nomenclature uses numeral ordinals for device generations (as discussed ad infinitum in related WP talk page naming discussions before: e.g. not using "The new iPad" rather than "iPad (3rd generation)", et al) in both their physical and digital documentation, which (more importantly, as it follows WP rules for using "most commonly used/known by name") the media generally also follow when describing generations. And an additional point, many articles talk about many iOS devices, so it certainly will not look particularly congruous to have numbers (for iPhones: e.g. iPhone 3G, iPhone 4, iPhone 4S, etc.) yet then use word usage (for other devices: e.g. iPad 2, iPad (third generation), iPod Touch (fifth generation), etc.) in the same sentence/para/article (remember here, that piped links are generally only used once per item per article, so they mostly cannot be used throughout the article to solve this).


 * So in summary, I think this WP guideline of "common name" should be followed first, but when mixed with the other practical and historical implications mentioned, even more so makes keeping numeral ordinals a lot more preferable and logical. This is my view on readability of course, so others may disagree, but if there is no clear "single answer", then why bother changing them to achieve next to nothing. Thanks. Jimthing (talk) 20:29, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Metric System
We need to start using automatic conversion of units so international readers can get an idea of screen sizes in relation to the metric system, for example, the screen should read 9.7 in, instead of just 9.7 inches.

International readers can convert measurements from their original units. We don't need to clutter text with duplicated measurements. 71.221.67.50 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

Model numbers?
i don't know what's going on, but the model numbers given in the comparison table bear no relationship to the model numbers I find on actual iPads, which are of the form xxnnnLL/A, such as MD329LL/A. Shouldn't the model numbers given here match what's on the actual machines? Poihths (talk) 13:37, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

The numbers you are finding are Apple's "Order Number"s, which vary based on the configuration of the device, such as the amount of storage it has. The model numbers start with an A and aren't always printed on the back of the device. --David G (talk) 06:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

iPad Air 2 picture
The iPad Air 2 picture used around the article shows the white edition, whereas all the other iPad images use the darker iPads. Is this correct? I think a white image of the iPad Air 2 should be used instead. StewdioMACK (talk) 11:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Wrong sales number for Q4 2014
The image of worldwide iPad sales in the Usage section contains wrong sales number for Q4 2014. It shouldn't be 5.31 million but 12.32 million. Where does this image come from anyway? It's not editable or sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.120.212.155 (talk) 20:23, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

iPad Air 2 Mass
The metric mass of the iPad Air 2 listed in the article is currently incorrect. Apple states (here) that the mass is 437g for the WiFi version and 444g for the WiFi + Cellular version. Please change "Wi-Fi model: 0.96 lb (440 g) Wi-Fi + Cellular model: 0.98 lb (440 g)" to "Wi-Fi model: 0.96 lb (437 g) Wi-Fi + Cellular model: 0.98 lb (444 g)" RichPollock (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done Cannolis (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

iPad as a Camera
I often see tourists using their iPads as a replacement for their point-and-shoot cameras on wildlife safaris! Here's a photograph of a tourist using an iPad(2?) to photograph an elephant in Namibia. Not sure if it would be an useful addition to this page so leaving it to the others to decide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sonicdrewdriver (talk • contribs) 22:00, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sources in the "Reception" section are dubious
[212] "iPad in the Homeschool". Spotty Banana. Retrieved October 1, 2010.

[214] Harrell, Ashley (October 1, 2010). "iHelp for Autism". San Francisco Weekly. Retrieved July 29, 2012.

These media outlets are legitimate but it sounds like this is mere advertising for Apple.

"The iPad...has been praised as a valuable tool for homeschooling." The "Spotty Banana" is not a peer-reviewed journal for child pedagogy.

"The iPad has also been called a revolutionary tool to help children with autism..." And the San Francisco Weekly is not a peer-reviewed journal for psychology, much less autism. There's a few other positive reviews on the iPad that make this article seem like it's being manipulated by Apple or one of their fans. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.56.215.29 (talk) 02:43, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Photos
The chart for the mini models lacks photos.

The main picture and the same ipad air 2 photo in the model comparison chart are apparently mockups of the gold model with a white bezel which blend in to the typical Wikipedia white background with such a narrow edge when scaled to these sizes. If someone can source a black bezel ipad 2 photo for these articles, I think that would be an improvement: List of iOS devices, IPad, IPad Air 2

72.49.196.32 (talk) 09:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)

All Jobs & No Ive
These Apple articles are an utter disgrace, the entire industry recognises Ive's contribution yet for some bizarre reason Wikipedia has decided to airbrush him out of its history. Twobells''t@lk 18:43, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

iPad Air screen size
Do I recall correctly that the original iPad Air reduced the screen size slightly, and the iPad Air 2 returned it to 9.7 inches?Halwyman (talk) 18:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Should include wifi streams in specs
It is very useful in planning a wifi network to know the number of streams the clients are capable of. It would be great to include this information here as it is difficult to find. The ipad 4 is single stream and the ipad air 1 is 2 stream. This means the that even though both of those ipads are listed as 802.11n capable, their performance is very different. The iPad Air 2 is 2 stream. Thanks, hope this makes it in! Dockeradz (talk) 18:21, 30 October 2015 (UTC)dockeradz

ipad 4 rerelease
The timeline shows the ipad 4 being discontinued (presumably replaced by the air) and then reintroduced. Would be good to indicate why this happened (what feature was missing/business use forgotten) to cause this?

98.26.64.6 (talk) 16:17, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
 * IPad_(4th_generation) mentions it's due to iPad 2. iPad 2 was used as low-end model instead of iPad 4 during introduction of iPad Air. Then 4 replaced 2 as low-end model with lower price. Maybe when Air was introduced, 4's price couldn't be lowered? Wasill37 (talk) 08:18, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Bluetooth 4.0 connectivity
I think there needs to be work on connectivity section of the sidebar in the ipad article to denote that Bluetooth 4.0 technology is included for "Air, Air 2, Mini 1st generation, 2 & 3" (although I haven't double checked that list and I'm unsure of what bands the GSM or CDMA models would have, they may all match up with the existing entries for "3rd & 4th generation:". 72.49.196.32 (talk) 09:07, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * I separated bluetooth and cellular comparison. I think the sidebar could become too long if include cellular bands supported by each model. Wasill37 (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Did a brief check on the LTE band, the sidebar actually only shows iPad 3's, iPad 4 supported more LTE bands. Wasill37 (talk) 09:27, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2015
http://www.apple.com/shop/buy-ipad/ipad-pro

Th3l0stin5pac3 (talk) 16:01, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Sam Sailor Talk! 10:52, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Question: Could someone knowledgeable add the Ipad Pro information into the same table as the rest of the current Ipad versions so that it is easy to compare the versions straight across (instead of having to scroll up and down between the two sections)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.228.153.100 (talk) 03:09, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I don't know how to edit this talk-page, maybe you inform me also, if I could send this message some how better? Anyhow, iPad Pro display resolution is wrong at right side bar, right resolution is less. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:14BA:8FF:1500:49A4:30CD:AC9A:3CEC (talk) 21:05, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Major improvements?
The apps are mentioned as major improvements from what used to be. As far as I have noticed, it was easy enough to download word and excel, but they are doing nothing more or less than what they should. What I have also downloaded is a calculator that erased the number two, and wants USD 19 for it to be brought back, and that was after I was wondering why I even downloaded that calculator in the first place.

If we call these improvements, is this page simular to the one about Delta Airlines? Stat-ist-ikk is not finding the signature button. Stat-ist-ikk (talk) 15:19, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Model comparison table should be merged into List of iOS devices
The same was already done for the iPhone article: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IPhone&diff=686813513&oldid=685440392 It is unnecessary to keep two such listings. You should keep a small model listing instead. 84.173.203.81 (talk) 17:05, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2016
iPad Pro 9.7 release date should be changed from March 31, 2015 to March 31, 2016.

Jkrafcik (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) Please &#123;&#123;re&#125;&#125; 22:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2016
Please insert the following text into ipad history straight after: Apple began taking pre-orders for the first-generation iPad on March 12, 2010.[3] The only major change to the device between its announcement and being available to pre-order was the change of the behavior of the side switch to perform either sound muting or screen rotation locking (user selectable).[32] The Wi-Fi version of the iPad went on sale in the United States on April 3, 2010.[3][33]

"The first person to buy an iPad on April 3rd 2010 was Richard Gutjahr. While he only arrived 23 hours before the opening of the store, he happened to be the first person in the queue who preordered an iPad. "

There are also other references but Sueddeutsche is the highest ranking evidence as it is a quality newspaper in Germany.

"Richard Gutjahr" may also be linked to his wikipedia subpage. Will Tell (talk) 17:03, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
 * We do not add information about specific individuals purchasing pre-order products by store. If we did, the encyclopedia would be full of articles listing "first purchases" by store. -- Dane 2007 </b> talk  22:06, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

noted. This was just the first ever buyer of the first ever ipad, who happens to have a profile on wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Will Tell (talk • contribs) 15:38, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 September 2016
Could ebooks be removed from the page as it is not bidirectional? Thanks, 207.161.217.209 (talk) 20:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — Andy W.  ( talk  · ctb) 06:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016
timeline should state both the iPad pro and the iPad pro 9.7. currently only iPad pro is shown. 92.19.216.145 (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
 * See Timeline of iPad models; the section transcludes that page. — Andy W. ( talk ) 01:18, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2017
Can you change these source links back from:


 * https://www.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703410004575029631361786998.html
 * https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029621430370074.html
 * https://www.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575447531699309858.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESixthNews

To:


 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703410004575029631361786998.html
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094304575029621430370074.html
 * http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703846604575447531699309858.html?mod=WSJ_hps_MIDDLESixthNews

please? They redirect to the "sign up/subscribe" page. 103.199.137.190 (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ Thanks! —   IVORK  Discuss 03:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Fifth and sixth generation redirects
Currently:


 * iPad (5th generation) redirects to iPad Air
 * iPad (6th generation) redirects to iPad Air 2

However according to Apple, this is not correct. The new iPad announced on March 21, 2017 is being referred to as "iPad (5th generation)". Therefore the iPad Air and iPad Air 2 are considered to be a separate line and not part of the "classic" iPad generations.

taestell (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2017 (UTC)


 * Upon release and need for an iPad (5th generation) article to be created, the re-direct will be replaced with the article. Additionally at this time, it is more for people using 5th gen as a search term, even if it isn't the intended one.
 * Cheers —   IVORK  Discuss 22:16, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 March 2017
In the model comparison of the iPad at the technical spec of the new 7th generation iPad, the battery is stated to be 332.4 W·h. It should be 32.4 W·h. This can be confirmed to the Apple website which says "Built-in 32.4-watt-hour rechargeable lithium-polymer battery". Remedya (talk) 07:10, 23 March 2017 (UTC)


 * ✅ —   IVORK  Discuss 12:55, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Request to update the display specifications in model comparison
The iPad Mini 4 introduces the fully-laminated display and anti-reflective coating, but this is not currently reflected in the model comparison table. In addition, I believe the 12.9" iPad Pro also has a laminated and anti-reflective display, but this too is missing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.187.45.12 (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on IPad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110316162215/http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/ to http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130509081929/http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4213981/Samsung-fabs-Apple-A5-processor to http://www.eetimes.com/electronics-news/4213981/Samsung-fabs-Apple-A5-processor
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110710123801/http://www.informationweek.com/news/231001147 to http://www.informationweek.com/news/231001147
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100619163754/http://gawker.com/5539717/steve-jobs-offers-world-freedom-from-porn to http://gawker.com/5539717/steve-jobs-offers-world-freedom-from-porn

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

iPad Pro line no longer up to date
Need to include the new iPad Pro 10.5 series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingnick42 (talk • contribs) 08:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

Missing memory for 2nd Generation iPad Pros
Under the iPad Pro series list, the 2nd generation iPad Pro models have a blank cell for the amount of memory.

Both should be changed from ' ' to '4 GB 1600MHz LPDDR4 DRAM'. This amount of memory is listed in the list of iOS devices article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iOS_devices#iPad_Pro IceBreakerG (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Done -KAP03(Talk •&#32;Contributions •&#32;Email) 18:15, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

About a Threat
Dear Editors! I found an article, but I can't judge its truth, it is about the ipads effects on children. You could use it, if you want. Best, Bokorember (talk) 07:48, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Quarterly sales graph
I couldn't find a good place to put the reference in the graph, but here it is. --Wikideas1 (talk) 00:15, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

32 bit vs 64 bit
Would be nice if tables also showed which are 32 bit processors and which are 64 bit. 12.26.187.2 (talk) 20:06, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Not sure i will add this to the table, but iPads based on Apple A7 and later are 64-bit. So the iPad Air 1/2, iPad 2017, iPad Mini 2-4, and iPad Pros are all 64-bit. --Jules  (Mrjulesd) 03:40, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on IPad. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.att.com/gen/press-room?pid=4800&cdvn=news&newsarticleid=30854
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080508053830/http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1797 to http://support.apple.com/kb/HT1797
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101229065848/http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/27/for-ipad-81-percent-of-top-book-apps-are-kids-titles/ to http://www.aolnews.com/2010/04/27/for-ipad-81-percent-of-top-book-apps-are-kids-titles

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

iOS 11.2 highest
iOS 11.2 highest actual  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:810B:C53F:B9E8:20F9:8C43:90E9:B5F4 (talk) 17:26, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2018
Please change the 'Highest supported operating system' in the iPad Series area from 11.2.6 to 11.3. https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2018/03/ios-11-3-is-available-today/ --ParrFour (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC) ParrFour (talk) 18:09, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done —   IVORK  Discuss 22:41, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2018
The new iPad (March 2018) supports Apple Pencil (https://www.apple.com/ipad-9.7/specs/), so the final sentence in the header summary is no longer true.

Current: "The iPad Pros have unique features such as the Smart Connector and the ability to use the Apple Pencil stylus, which are exclusive to this series of iPads."

Suggested Edit: "The iPad Pros have unique features such as the Smart Connector, which are exclusive to this series of iPads." Aldukeman (talk) 03:25, 16 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, thank you. Gulumeemee (talk) 07:30, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

launch price table missing data
I couldn't find the official launch price but this is better. Actual prices. There's typically 2-3 companies offering similar low price. Add about 10% to 30% to get typical prices (10% more) or retail brick and mortar price (30% more).

source: price comparison site that stores price history, prices in Germany (EUR). Median is not provided in the raw data and was not calculated manually but through drawing a line in the price chart middle of (3,12,24 month) "price channel" (see technical analysis, linear regression). Last digit rounded up (627 -> 630). The prices mostly come from few companies doing high volume web orders with shipping cost of 5-15 eur to Germany and 25-35 eur to Europe. yyyymm date of first record price

yyyymm Product (Model) ::: (prices in EUR) first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price ::: first 12 month median of daily recorded lowest price ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years

201410 Apple iPad Air 2 128GB silver (MGTY2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 650 ::: 12 month 630 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 410

201410 Apple iPad Air 2 LTE 128GB silver (MGWM2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 760 ::: 12 month 730 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 560

201603 Apple iPad Pro 9.7" 128GB rosegold (MM192FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 810 ::: 12 month 750 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 530*

201603 Apple iPad Pro 9.7" LTE 128GB rosegold (MLYL2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 940 ::: 12 month 880 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 560*

201603 Apple iPad Pro 9.7" 256GB rosegold (MM1A2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 970 ::: 12 month 870 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 590*

201603 Apple iPad Pro 9.7" LTE 256GB rosegold (MLYM2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 1100 ::: 12 month 980 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 650*

201706 Apple iPad Pro 10.5" 256GB rosegold (MPF22FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 770 ::: 12 month 790 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 760*

201706 Apple iPad Pro 10.5" LTE 256GB rosegold (MPHK2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 910 ::: 12 month 930 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 880*

201603 Apple iPad Pro 12.9" 256GB silver (ML0U2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 1180 ::: 12 month 1080 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 790*

201603 Apple iPad Pro 12.9" LTE 256GB silver (ML2M2FD/A / ML3W2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 1320 ::: 12 month 1270 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 890*

201706 Apple iPad Pro 12.9" 256GB silver (MP6H2FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 930 ::: 12 month 940 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 900*

201706 Apple iPad Pro 12.9" LTE 256GB silver (MPA52FD/A) ::: first 3 month median of daily recorded lowest price 1100 ::: 12 month 1110 ::: highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years 1030*

(*) Highest of 3 distinct lowest prices recorded during first 3 years may change until following date: (ISO 8601 date format)

9.7 model MMY,MLY until 2019-03-22

12.9 model ML0,ML2,ML3 until 2019-03-22

10.5 model MPF,MPH until 2020-06-07

12.9 model MP6,MPA until 2020-06-19 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.155.19.195 (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2018
Add Apple Inc. to Manufacturer list 96.49.62.90 (talk) 17:51, 23 July 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. LivinRealGüd (talk) 03:07, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 November 2018
I'd like to contribute corrections as related to the transition from the 2nd to 3rd gen iPad pro, dates, versions, active product line, etc. Nmemon (talk) 14:35, 2 November 2018 (UTC)


 * ❌.  is for making specific requests to add, change, or remove material.  If you have the text of an addition you'd like to make, you can submit another request with that.  Requests for unprotecting the article should go to WP:RFUP.  –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:44, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2019
need to update: ipad 2018 edition has a GPU, called: PowerVR Series7XT Plus (six core) GPU Specter01wj (talk) 21:30, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DannyS712 (talk) 22:33, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi protected article edit request
There are tons of missing stuffs regarding the new iPads that were announced just a few days ago. I have successfully made some edits to it, including the CO2e for both (in addition to the 6th gen iPad) as well as the model numbers for the iPad Mini 5. However, I could not edit the article fully to include all information, specifically the Apple Pencil support for the iPad Air 3 and iPad Mini 5, as well as the model numbers for the iPad Air 3. Could someone who has access help edit these things? These information is already on Apple's website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AppleExpert1214 (talk • contribs) 01:16, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 April 2019
64.90.141.11 (talk) 14:18, 9 April 2019 (UTC) tell us how u made it
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 14:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 15 April 2019
2601:240:E480:6F66:E074:8667:1E41:DA4 (talk) 02:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Kpg  jhp  jm  06:54, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 June 2019
Suggesting that you change references to iPad(2018) to iPad(6th Generation), that is what apple refers to it as themselves in the "Model Name" under the "General >> About" in the settings. Scwscorpion (talk) 03:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: "iPad (2018)" is the name of the article Saucy[talk – contribs] 04:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Then the article is wrong too... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scwscorpion (talk • contribs) 14:33, June 14, 2019 (UTC)
 * Move-protection-shackle.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. Saucy[talk – contribs] 22:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 September 2019
teh

the ipados 13 is coming out sept.24 not the 30th 66.207.5.57 (talk) 17:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: as you have not cited reliable sources to back up your request, without which no information should be added to, or changed in, any article. - Arjayay (talk) 17:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Add more information on the iPads
Hi. I'd like to edit this page to add more information on the history of the iPads. 94.207.83.41 (talk) 14:29, 14 November 2019 (UTC)


 * ❌. Edit requests are requests to make specific, precise edits, not to allow one to edit the page at will. Currently, only autoconfirmed users can do that. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon &bull; videos) 14:41, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

"ITablet" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect ITablet. Please participate in the redirect discussion if you wish to do so. James-the-Charizard (talk to me!) (contribs) 12:53, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2019
I would like to add pictures for the third generation iPad Pro (11 and 12.9” models) because at the moment they are blank. Zacpulford77 (talk) 18:51, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Danski454 (talk) 23:33, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

adding remark pointing to model and generations list
Since the list of models and generations is in the sidebar, far beneath the image, and since the opening description section is extremely and unusually long, I'm adding a sentence in parenthesis about the list in the sidebar.פשוט pashute ♫ (talk) 18:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * IPad 1 PSD Mockup.png

Incomplete update of page following release of iOS 12.4.7.
The table at the top of the page needs to reflect the May 20th, 2020 release of iOS 12.4.7. The iPad Mini 2 and iPad Mini 3 have been updated to reflect this release in their more detailed entries lower down, however they still list 12.4.6 as the last supported OS in the table at the top of the article. The iPad Air, lists 12.4.6 in the table, 12.4.5 in it's detail breakdown, both should be 12.4.7 as of May 20th, 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by DoubleYouSee (talk • contribs) 13:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

The current iOS is now 13.5 and the list shows 13.4.1. The page needs to be updated. https://support.apple.com/guide/ipad/supported-models-ipad213a25b2/ipados — Preceding unsigned comment added by KeithCody (talk • contribs) 17:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

This is still an issue with iOS 12.4.8. The "final supported OS" and support end date are off for iOS 12 iPads. Kriegersaysyupyupyup (talk) 02:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

History: Support security updates
Older iPads, which does not get feature updates, but still security updates are marked as "unsupported". I think this is missleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JensXP (talk • contribs) 22:18, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Spelling error in article lede needs correcting
Paragraph 4, sentence 5: Delete proceessor - insert processor.
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 20:56, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020
Ipad air Got ios 12.4.9 not 12.4.8. 2405:201:D001:D089:A979:B65D:82A5:F873 (talk) 03:57, 7 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. SK2242 (talk) 11:25, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

They did get it indeed. User:26zhangi (talk)

Dimensions
The dimensions on the iPad Air 3rd Gen (2019) seem to be wrong on the comparison table here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad_Air_(2019)

that list it as 238.8 mm × 167.6 mm × 6.1 mm

in contrast to the main iPad Air 2019 page here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad_Air_(2019)

that list it as 250.6 mm x 174.1 mm x 6.1 mm.

The latter appears to be correct, based on my measurement of my A2152 model.

--67.149.230.151 (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Infobox
The infobox really needs to be shortened. There is way too much detail in it: the CPUs, release dates, etc for what seems like every iPad produced. There is no need for that much detail in what is supposed to be a part of the introduction to the article. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 05:38, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

On desktop it's not so much of a problem as the sections hide, but on mobile there are no collapsible sections and it looks awful. I also believe the WP:MOS says not to have content collapsed by default, but I can't find the correct section on my phone. NemesisAT (talk) 08:01, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Here it is: MOS:COLLAPSE DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 16:09, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for this. I think the infobox should be cut back to only hold information that applies to all iPad models. The RAM, processors, etc, just adds clutter and is already listed in this article and on the articles for each iPad model.NemesisAT (talk) 16:43, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I just tried to make a quick edit, but inadvertently deleted a bunch of references. I wonder if I could do this better with the VisaulEditor? I'll have to try again later. NemesisAT (talk) 16:50, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

You did a great job. If we can get the infobox to look like how it did in that edit while also keeping the references in the article, then that would solve the problem. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I've tried again now and looks like everything is working. NemesisAT (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you, NemesisAT. Looks so much better now. DrPepperIsNotACola (talk) 22:31, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

WPA3?
WPA3 is new security level and available with iOS 13+.

iPad 5 gen. and iPad Pro 2. gen and newer can do wpa3 with a wpa3 router. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:6d40:3486:cd01:b8ed:b74:4478:1804 (talk) 21:02, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

iPad original web browsing
Does the original iPad still work for web browsing or do you need a newer iPad to browse the web — Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Not sure. This is not a forum. 26zhangi (talk) 18:18, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

iOS 12.5.5 is latest in iOS 12
See https://support.apple.com/en-en/HT209084 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810b:c940:4798:a550:41cc:92a8:3458 (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Wifi in table by Model Numbers like A1234 not necessary
Which iPad is without wifi?

So wifi is not necessary in this cells of information.

Nothing or Cellular is here enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:810b:c940:4798:a550:41cc:92a8:3458 (talk) 14:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Generation Talk
The History section is a little confusing about the generations of the original iPad (not the Mini, Air, or Pro versions).

It's clear and makes sense up to this paragraph "On October 23, 2012, Apple announced the fourth generation iPad" but then shortly after that there's a paragraph that reads "On October 22, 2013, Apple introduced the fifth generation of iPad, called the iPad Air..." and then a few paragraphs down "On March 21, 2017, a new iPad was announced" shortly followed by the paragraph "On March 28, 2018, the new IPad (6th generation) was announced."

The problem is in the Oct22,2013 paragraph. I don't believe it should read as the "fifth generation" when it's referring to the 1st generation of the iPad Air. The real introduction of the 5th Gen iPad was the Mar21,2017 paragraph. So I propose: (1) Change the Oct22,2013 paragraph to read "On October 22, 2013, Apple introduced a new, and separate line, called the iPad Air..." and then; (2) Change the Mar21,2017 paragraph to read "On March 21, 2017, a new iPad from the original line was announced (5th generation)."

And then finally, I suggest revising the final paragraph of the History section to instead say "A year after the 7th gen..." to something like "On September 15th, 2020..." to make it clear of the actual dates, bringing us up to the current models.

Thank you! Farfolomew (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2021 (UTC)Farfolomew

"IPad Air (5th generation)" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IPad Air (5th generation) and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 January 28 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 07:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Split discussion

 * Agree with split. It would also help with the discussion of the different generations. Gusfriend (talk) 09:57, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, what is it you would like to split? The individual iPad generations already have their own pages. I remember their was discussion on splitting the comparison tables into a separate article? NemesisAT (talk) 17:47, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There is a split request at the top of the page: "It has been suggested that this article be split into a new article titled Comparison of iPad models." which I am supporting. Gusfriend (talk) 08:56, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support. Wingwatchers (talk) 17:54, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Edit request - "I've" to (Jonathan) "Ive"
After seeking to develop the tablet first, I've come to an agreement with Jobs that the iPhone was more important and reversed the order. ...should instead be... After seeking to develop the tablet first, Ive come to an agreement with Jobs that the iPhone was more important and reversed the order. 31.125.139.185 (talk) 09:05, 14 March 2022 (UTC)
 * Specific text to be added or removed: in the History > Background section, I believe that...
 * Reason for the change: I presume it's supposed to refer to a conversation between Ive (chief design officer) and Steve Jobs. As it is, it reads like the WP editor reached an agreement with Jobs!
 * References supporting change: existing references in-place appear to support change:


 * ✅ changed to "Ive came" Happy Editing-- IAm Chaos  21:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Copyediting comments
User:Wingwatchers requested this article be copyedited, which I will do over the next few days. Ovinus (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2022 (UTC) Because this article may go to GAN or FAC, I will make some content-related notes as well. Other notes: , can you hold on to yout copyedit? I will resolve these issues very soon.Wingwatchers (talk) 18:30, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
 * "It succeeded the Newton MessagePad and an unreleased prototype" How can the iPad succeed an unreleased product?
 * Suggest adding date of switch to iPadOS
 * Why "jailbreaking" in the lead? If you must, I'd suggest putting "App Store is controlled" first and then a short "Many older devices are susceptibel to jailbreaking, which circumvents these restrictions" ✅
 * Fairly stable market share of how much, approximately? The sentence is quite vague in general and I'd suggest replacing it with simply what its market share was as of 2021/2022 ✅
 * Perhaps some extra context to Jobs's 1983 speech would help. What was the public's reaction? There is scant public reaction; in my perspective the quote does not fit in so I removed them.
 * "Apple's associated supplier" can we be more specific than "associated"? what does quanta supply Changed to Apple-affiliated manufacturer according to source
 * "US Design Patent No. D504,889 leaked" How is a patent a leak? Clarified
 * When was the iPhone conceived? I will dig deeper into this.
 * "K48 (the iPad)" What does this mean? The project was codenamed the iPad? If not, then remove the parenthetical expression
 * "internationally on May 28, July 23, and September 17" On three separate occasions, for different areas? Yes
 * "50% more pixel density than standard displays" Need to be explicit about what a standard display is; there are many displays
 * "Consequently, the device has no intrinsic "native" orientation; only the relative position of the home button changes" Is this relevant? I guess not.
 * "1020p FaceTime HD camera" Is "FaceTime" necessary? Yes
 * "M9 motion coprocessor" define "motion coprocessor" Yes
 * "low-light and HD-quality shots" Wasn't the fourth generation already HD quality (at least in the front camera) ? Well...
 * Made a major change in the fifth generation paragraph; please check
 * When was the sixth generation announced? March 27, 2018
 * I don't understand the camera tech of the sixth-gen iPad, if you could clarify
 * "multitask functionalities" define?
 * "which is two times faster than the then-bestselling Windows PC" Is this NPOV? on my removal list
 * "and its Retina Display has a resolution of 3.5 million pixels" add dimensions
 * CPU is used twice in "eighth generation"
 * "artificial intelligence–immersed Neural Engine"
 * Will continue tomorrow. Ovinus (talk) 23:09, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
 * The article could probably use a bit of restructuring if taken to FAC; although thorough, History is very long and needs summary style. Splitting to History of the iPad is honestly reasonable if you'd want to go more in depth on the reception and notable technological feats of each release. The information could also be put into the already-existing Comparison of iPad models. Model comparison needs a short bit of text summarizing the main article.
 * "processing 5 trillion operations per second" This assertion is quite vague; it's not as concrete as, say, FLOPs. I suggest removal, as it sounds promotional
 * "ultrafast wireless LTE range, and a 802.11a/b/g/n standard Wifi connectivity" promotional, and the 802... stuff is confusing/jargony
 * "with 25% wider Color" do you mean color range?
 * Per MOS:TENSE generally use present tense about discontinued products
 * For sure! Take your time. Ovinus (talk) 00:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 April 2022
[1] Change “May 2015” to “May 2005” AND [2] change “January 2020” to “January 2010” in the 2nd paragraph of “background” (under “history”). Reference [11]. Cdanz (talk) 05:01, 3 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅  — Paper9oll  (🔔 • 📝)  05:09, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022
On the iPad mini 6 description, there is this "It uses an Apple A15 Bionic chip, with a 40% faster 6-core CPU, an 80% faster 6-core CPU, an 80% faster 5-core CPU." It mentions the CPU three times, the 80% CPU statements being wrong, they are meant for the GPU. It should be changed to "It uses an Apple A15 Bionic chip, with a 40% faster 6-core CPU and 80% faster 5-core GPU."

Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ —GoldRingChip 20:20, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 (2)
iPad Air 4's description states "It used an Apple A14 Bionic chip, which comprised 11.9 billion transistors, a 40% faster 60-core CPU, a 30% faster GPU," It has a 6-core CPU, not 60. Could mention it is a 4-core GPU. Change to "It used an Apple A14 Bionic chip, which comprised 11.9 billion transistors, a 40% faster 6-core CPU, a 30% faster 4-core GPU,"

Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅; thanks Ovinus (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 (3)
iPad Air 2's description states "It debuted Face ID, a facial recognition system biometric authentication," It did not debut Face ID, the 3rd gen iPad Pro brought it to iPad in 2018. Remove entire statement.

Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:51, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ovinus (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 (4)
The 8th generation iPad states "It uses an Apple A12 Bionic chip, which has a 40 percent faster 6-core CPU and a 2-times faster 4-core CPU than its predecessor." Mentions CPU twice. Change to "and a 2-times faster 4-core GPU than its predecessor."

Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 20:57, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ovinus (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 April 2022 (5)
iPad 4th generation states "a 1020p FaceTime HD camera", which is the wrong resolution, and then brings it up again in "It features a 5-megapixel, rear-facing camera capable of recording 1080p videos, and a 720p front-facing FaceTime HD camera," so I don't think the first mention is needed. Change to remove "a 1020p FaceTime HD camera".

Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC) Cheese &#38; Pickle Sandwich (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ovinus (talk) 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

FaceID
Under the History section, in the iPad Air 2nd generation subsection, it erroneously states that FaceID was introduced with the iPad Air 2 when in reality FaceID was introduced with the iPhone X 203.218.5.47 (talk) 06:12, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks Ovinus ([[User talk:Ovinus|talk) 02:40, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request
The seventh Gen iPad section needs to be edited for clarity.

It currently reads:

"The seventh generation of iPad was announced on September 10, 2019, and released on September 25. It uses a 64-bit Apple A10 Fusion chip, which is two times faster than the then-bestselling Windows PC, and its Retina Display has a resolution of 3.5 million pixels It added support for the Smart Keyboard accessory."

Per the article that is cited the line from the page that reads "It uses a 64-bit Apple A10 Fusion chip, which is two times faster than the then-bestselling Windows PC" has two problems.

First the statement that the processor is twice as fast is a claim from Apple it is not fact and there is no benchmark showing that.

Second per the article Apple compares that A10 Fusion chip to the "top-selling PC Laptop" The way the page reads it does not make that distinction. This leads to confusion as to what they are comparing it to.

Minor other problem there is no period after pixels but the word it is capitalized. I think a "." is missing.

If you want to edit the section as little as possible, I would suggest this rewrite:

"The seventh generation of iPad was announced on September 10, 2019, and released on September 25. It uses a 64-bit Apple A10 Fusion chip, which Apple claimed is two times faster than the then top-selling laptop PC, and its Retina Display has a resolution of 3.5 million pixels. It added support for the Smart Keyboard accessory."

However, when reviewing the article these are claims obviously taken from marketing material and in my opinion should have no place in an article in an encyclopedia format.

I would suggest getting rid of the claim part and just stating the verifiable facts. In that case I would prefer the following rewrite:

"The seventh generation of iPad was announced on September 10, 2019, and released on September 25. It uses a 64-bit Apple A10 Fusion chip, and its Retina Display has a resolution of 3.5 million pixels. It added support for the Smart Keyboard accessory." 70.235.84.143 (talk) 02:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)


 * ✅ Jason A. Quest (talk) 13:06, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 September 2022
TheKamster (talk) 17:28, 9 September 2022 (UTC) change image in info box to iPad 9th gen.
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done for now: Please provide an image with an acceptable license. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:47, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request
Add security information, such as the original vs modern day security standards and methods and instances of breaches, so on. 138.248.235.4 (talk) 10:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

"IPad Air 1" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect IPad Air 1 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 3 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Bassie f (talk) 08:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)