Hacker News Reader

Comment by ohwp | Hacker News Reader

I liked to know more about the weight per size, so here a small list:

  iPad    : 680 g / 6186 cm3 = 0.1099 g / cm3
  iPad 2  : 601 g / 3944 cm3 = 0.1523 g / cm3
  iPad Air: 469 g / 3060 cm3 = 0.1532 g / cm3
  iPad 3  : 650 g / 4213 cm3 = 0.1542 g / cm3
  iPad 4  : 650 g / 4213 cm3 = 0.1542 g / cm3

View on HN

I'm trying to understand how you would use that information. Other than "product dimensions" and "product weight", why do you need to calculate/know more? It's interesting and all - I just don't guess I see what the value of knowing the g/cm3 is.

"It's interesting and all"

Well it's just that. Apple is promoting their size/weight ratio so I just wanted to know there progress. Nothing more nothing less ;)

No, they are not advertising the ratio. They are advertising reducing both. By your size/weight ratio, the original iPad would be the "ideal", but any one who has used any of these devices knows that's absurd.

Density is far less important than the actual size and weight. High density is a demonstration that they've utilized all the available space (since the density of the components themselves are not changing) for components and need less room for heat. Alternatively, it could be a sign that the internal structure matters less than less and only the exterior components (aluminum and glass) are meaningfully different from one version to another.

What makes the iPad Air attractive is not density, it's that there's less of it all around.

Density determines how heavy something feels.

> 0.1542 g / cm3

An excelent flotation device, if a tad small ...

I guess the volume is off by one order of magnitude - a paper notepad of 20 x 30 x 1 centimeters would be 600 cm3.

Whoops. You are the first to notice ;)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com