Teardown of the Apple iPad reveals a similar pattern for Apple – leveraging tried and true technology

Only one to two times per year does a device so much capture the minds of the market that it warrants braving planes, trains, automobiles, sleet, snow, and dead of night to get our hands on it. While Apple fans can't wait to use the latest device, we can't wait to . . . well . . . destroy it. We braved the lines at a "local" mall, got there early enough to be 20th in the pre-order line, only to bring the device home to our teardown lab. Notably, we have been collaborating with our good friends over at iFixit who have published a detailed iPad teardown in a step-by-step format.

Chipworks' unique angle in tearing down the iPad is to provide images down to the bare die. We confirm the source of some of the key silicon by publishing die markings and die photos. In addition, you can order very high magnification die photos of some of these key devices.

While tablet computing has been around for a while, outside of devices purpose built for artists, there has been no killer application to drive really mainstream adoption. We mean the kind of adoption that goes well beyond technology fans, to the kind that can result in the replication of Apple's massive dominance in portable music players. Adoption that makes a mass market out of a relatively small, fragmented one.

But if the market isn't currently dominated by anyone, then what exactly is the Apple iPad, and how does it fit our current understanding of our needs?

Put glibly, is this a touchscreen Mac or is it a really big iPod Touch?

The iPad is a really big iPod Touch

Not that there is anything wrong with that as countless reviews have already written




Apple has relied on tried and true technology for the first generation of this device. In some cases, technically speaking, Apple has even gone backwards from what we saw in the latest generation iPhone that we have torn down.

Case in point, Apple is not using the do-all touchscreen controller from Texas Instruments that it used in the iPhone 3G, but has instead gone back to the three chip solution seen in the iPhone 2G. Of course, the same space limitations aren't there in a large device, and so we would speculate that the three chip solution had a lower overall cost. You can see from the image that, relatively speaking, the iPad is basically a giant battery with a tiny board attached to it (outlined in red), with some space left over for a future 3G mobile communications board.




The printed circuit board is a straightforward board with no big surprises. At the thumbnail resolution to the left, you can see the Apple A4 processor (more on this later).

You can also see the two Samsung K9LCG08U1M 8 GB MLC NAND flash memory chips. At Chipworks, we keep part number decoders on the major manufacturers, and the part number for these memory chips suggests that this is a first generation device, and not the latest advanced process technology from Samsung.

We note that the FCC teardown shows Toshiba memory. This package has Samsung package and die markings. It is reasonable to assume that Apple has sourced memory from more than one manufacturer.




The backside image doesn't reveal as many of the obviously newsworthy chips, but does appear to have the iPad's inertial sensor.

The accelerometer design win was by STMicroelectronics, continuing its success with Apple devices. The die markings can be found on the second page of this article.



The Apple A4 processor is packaged just like the Apple iPhone processors using package-on-package technology. One for the microprocessor and one for the two DRAM die.

For full article, visit the below link:
Apple Teardown

sorry, but its not.

the hardware teardown
seems to confirm similar hardware used. Only difference is the screen I think. Is it not?

you should try by yourself.
its different platform.

obviously similar hardware was used...they run the same OS after all. add bigger battery, A4 chip and huge screen. pretty pointless teardown if u ask me...

so my MBP is just an expensive version of a dell because it uses the same proc, RAM, GPU etc? they're both computers anyway. n ipod touch n ipad are both in the same class. did anybody expect the ipad to be running core i7 with 2TB RAID hdd???

even if it's the same, the bigger screen and new OS is what makes the difference. i dont think u need to be a genius to realize that...

Dude, ur thread so unattractive, what's the big deal?
iPod touch & iPad is different platform in terms of user interface, hardware, did u see some useful app getting better on large iPad screen?

Technically, the article posted by the TS is just saying that the iPad shares some similar innards with the iPod Touch. That's all.

Having said that, it is also obvious that the two are totally different machines in usage, feel and user experience. So a discussion as to whether the iPad is a large iPod Touch or not will be an exercise in futility.

Sorry dudes, i think the point of the tear down IS to illustrate that you are paying a higher price differential for something that is essentially the same - with no significant hardware improvements except for the size of the screen - the additional battery size to support the power consumption of a larger screen. I believe the author has no intention to debate whether or they run the same OS or not. It is a question of value in question. No offense to its technology whatsoever.

nawzi, your statement go directly in the opposite argument of dvlzplayground for saying that they are a different platform --- which in fact i have to agree with dvlzplayground that it is in fact the same. I do however hope to see useful applications developed for the iPad which in fact what seems to be exciting apps developers like us all over the world. The article i reiterate is a question of value over hardware - not the platform.

goodkarma, please read my reply above. I do agree with you however that user experience may be different depending on how developers re-develop apps for the iPad.

Thank you guys!

there's existing thread for iPad

Firstly it's iPad not "iPAD", iPod not "iPOD".

Ok get to your first post, what's the point of copy paste whole article from some other site?
A link is good enough. And if you were to start a discussion, do put in some your thought or at lease some of your own words to start it. At first I thought it's a spam bot doing this.

I will reply your question form a tech person view. Looks similar ≠ same. "He & His brother looks alike". But they're totally different person. Looks is deceptive, have you heard don't judge a book by it's cover?

Let me put it another way. Here's a link to iPod Touch 2nd Gen board:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPod-Touch-...own/586/2#s2932

Another one to MacBook Air:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/MacBook-Air...own/598/3#s3135

Tell me which looks closer to this:
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad-Teardown/2183/2#s11196

There are certain component that you will only see on larger device like netbook or laptop. And some component that are only on smaller device like iPod or iPhone. I would say it's looks like combination of A & B. Which is what happen on iPad, Apple is putting it's knowledge on tiny portable Mac & iPod/iPhone in iPad.

I think you are getting the point of the article wrongly. What they trying to say if someone hope the iPad is a tablet Mac (ie with traditional harddrive, processor, RAM slot, graphic chip & etc inside the iPad), it's not. iPad was built like iPod/iPhone with a single board design with flash memory.

About your argument on paying more for iPad just because it's a larger iPod Touch. Then you better off stay with iPod Touch. Only those who value extra work space, speed, refined apps would justify paying more for an upgrade to iPad. A product like this is produced as a choice. If it's a definitive match for everyone, then we won't need branding, marketing & selling. Just send one to each living human in the world once it's out of factory. If you don't see a point on iPad, just move along with whatever suit your needs. After-all we are human, human likes choices and that's what make us unique right? We can't tell you how good something is if you don't see it yourself.

This post has been edited by wei: Apr 11 2010, 01:05 AM

a product is never definite by use the hardware itself
you should learn it

---

Added on April 11, 2010, 3:02 amadd another to "looks similar to"
remember there is a lawyer 2 year backs claim the the person in the vide looks like him but not him? his statement:" It looks like me, but not me."


This post has been edited by cRazYee: Apr 11 2010, 03:02 AM