Buying the new iPad? You might want to double that storage

If you're buying a new iPad, take into account that app sizes have reportedly more than doubled to take advantage of the Retina display. 16GB might not cut it any more.

Just before the new iPads hit the stores, would-be consumers might want to consider that the 16GB that has served you well in the past might get eaten up a lot quicker now that the Retina display has become the hallmark feature.

Meghan Kelly of the Washington Post reports that the iPad apps have swollen in size to meet the new display's high-definition potential. Kelly gives the hat tip to Vietnamese tech blog Tinhte for pointing out the difference in app sizes (translated post):

That's a huge increase and a potential suck on data storage in even the newest 16GB iPad. Because Apple wants apps in the App Store to work universally with any of its mobile devices, the company isn't going to make an exception for the new display. We checked the App Store to see if the Pages app had actually increased to 269MB, and indeed it has.

The Cult of Mac blog also reports that iPad apps have more than doubled in size and offers their own comparison (you'll note a discrepancy in the reported size of the Pages app between the blogs; 269MB is the number listed in the App Store):

APP iPad2 iPad Retina
Keynote 110MB 327MB
Numbers 104MB 375MB
Pages 89MB 331MB
iMovie 82MB 404MB
iPhoto N/A 129MB

This could make a significant difference to iPad users who are app-aholics. If you've settled for 16GB in the past, you might want to consider your needs (or wants) and go for the 32GB or 64GB version instead.

Also see


Selena has been at TechRepublic since 2002. She is currently a Senior Editor with a background in technical writing, editing, and research. She edits Data Center, Linux and Open Source, Apple in the Enterprise, The Enterprise Cloud, Web Designer, and...


"Why didn't the new iPad come with expandable storage?" Why pay Amazon $25 for an SD card, when folks can pay Apple $200 for the same thing?


So now in addition to the capabilities and hardware feature left out - you're short on memory and going to be gouged to increase it! Brilliant - I can see the lemmings pouring over the cliff on this one.


a lot more dough than the standard $499 or $799, and, it's still all dependent upon the apps the user wants to get, and might still have to purchase even more memory after that. Upgrades and new features usually cost more dough to get the latest of a product or software package, but, the iPad3 is changing the whole equation about "upgrades" or "updates". Additional memory requirements are no laughing matter when talking about "upgrades" for iPads. I wonder if Apple is disclosing to consumers the additional "must have" requirements to make the iPad3 useful. It should not be in the fine print of the purchase or instructions manual. It should be explained up-front, but each salesperson to each prospective iPad3 purchaser. If a person takes an iPad3 home, and then discovers that, it's basically useless for taking advantage of the retina display, the consumer should be allowed to return the product to the store, because, there was no mention of the additional requirements. That would constitute fraud for non-disclosure of the limitations. It would be the same as an electric car customer who pays his $45,000 , and then takes a cross-country trip in a vehicle which only gives him 35 miles on one charge, and then reads the vehicle manual to discover that, he's going to have to make the rest of the trip on gasoline alone, or he's going to have to wait for the battery to recharge at some out-of-the-way recharging station. If the car dealer had not told the customer about the limitations, then the dealer would be charged with fraud, and would have to take back the vehicle, and might even be subject to government actions and a lawsuit. (Might be an exaggerated comparison, but, it's mostly about the "non-disclosed" limitations).


Understatement. Sloppy programming. Wasn't it Apple who commented how much room Windows took at one time?

Editor's Picks