Verge: "Pro Developers Opting out of iPad Pro"

[Essenar]

I'm not sure how you can make that claim when the development pipeline for many of these technologies (like the timer chip and pencil) have taken years to come through. I've been watching the pencil patents for around 3 years now, had no clue it was going to be for the Pro.

That's because it's very likely that their leaders weren't 100% sure it would be for the Pro either.

Engineering isn't some absolute decision making process. Most engineering projects have a decision making tree and reevaluate scope at different phases of production to assess direction. We will never actually know:
1) Was the iPad Pro the original planned product 3 years ago when pencil patents were being licensed.
2) If there was an original plan that was different, and what that plan was.

What they knew, was that they were going to want to use the pencil, and they needed to engineer it so they made the patents for it. When iPad sales dropped, they knew they had to do "something", so the Pro started to make sense. And there needs to be an incentive for users to buy the Pro and not an Air 2 with a Pencil, so right now the Pencil and Keyboard are Pro exclusives.

The issue is that there's millions of revenue in Professional users and those users use the Surface because it has the Pen and because you can't run a corporation using presentations on a device that is best used for Candy Crush and Hearthstone. If you want to win over corporate volume purchases from the likes of Surface and Dell Venue Pro's (which not only buy devices, but also large amounts of professional grade software to equip their professionals), you need to have a stylus and a first party keyboard that can be attached to the device.

They got that part right, but shot themselves in the foot by making it a mobile OS. They assumed that Microsoft failed with their ARM based OS because it was Windows and everyone hates Windows Mobile, and that they wouldn't fail with that same premise because iOS is much more successful than Windows RT. However, what they failed to realize is that you need developers to embrace your platform in different segments, or else there won't be third party software to support your high barrier of entry pricing model. Just look at Nintendo and Sega. They had, for all intents and purposes, the much better hardware platform and an earlier jump on the market with the Dreamcast and the GameCube. But they didn't have the developers on their side. Sony did, and that's why the Playstation 2 put Sega out of the hardware business and why the 360 had such a massive turnaround midway through its life.

 

[Essenar]

As a developer, I have no qualms with the iPad Pro running iOS. The selling points for me were (a) more screen real estate and (b) the Apple Pencil. A "tablet" running OS X has been available for years:

http://store.modbook.com/modbook-pro-osx.html

How many do you think they've sold or how many have you actually seen in real life? I'm not sure the mobile experience part of OS X would be worth being caught dead looking like you ripped someone's flat screen off the wall after you've paid nearly Mac Pro 2013 pricing for the thing. Besides, in it's former and current iterations, I don't think OS X would be a stellar mobile experience, hence iOS.


Likewise, I don't think a tablet makes Windows 8.1 through 10 a better overall experience, but that's just my opinion.

1) The iPad Pro is not entirely a mobile device. You can't use it when you're walking to your train or on the bus, you'd look ridiculous. You might say "I have no issues using a big screen" and that's fine, but you're not the majority. It's meant to be semi mobile. It's easier to throw in a bag and move around or take on a plane or on business trips. And it's meant to be laid out on a canvas so you can properly write and draw on it.

2) You're wrong about Windows. The Surface with full Windows is wildly successful. It's managed to create a massive dent in Apple's dominant market control of tablets from the $500-$1000 range. It also took chunks out of MacBook sales. People like the Surface and that's why the Surface Book launched. Microsoft saw that they had a good model and product and they pushed the envelope further. Developers can produce applications for Windows and just give it stylus support and boom, they have a product they can sell through multiple channels, not just the Microsoft Store, but from their own website.

3) The ModBook isn't successful because you have to buy a full MacBook and then pay another MacBook in price just to get the hardware for the ModBook. It's not a popular product because people don't want to void their warranty for a $4000 Frankenstein OSX Tablet that wasn't built by Apple themselves.

4) I have some very serious questions to your knowledge in computer science as a developer if you don't realize how much easier it would be to implement a touch overlay/view layout to OSX versus implementing x86 in iOS. One is a three month project based on device detected and sub classing your IBActions to IO click gestures. The other is a three to four year multimillion dollar complete OS rebuild because ARM architecture is cooked into iOS core.

 

[Rogifan]

A spot on editorial about the iPad Pro.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/15/11...of.mobile.computing....get.used.to.it.131423/

Let's see where this device is 3-5 years from now. For some people it will never replace a Mac. So what? Who said it needs to? Why can't iPad's and Macs co-exist? Why does one have to morph into the other?

 

[Essenar]

A spot on editorial about the iPad Pro.

http://www.macnn.com/articles/15/11...of.mobile.computing....get.used.to.it.131423/

Let's see where this device is 3-5 years from now. For some people it will never replace a Mac. So what? Who said it needs to? Why can't iPad's and Macs co-exist? Why does one have to morph into the other?

You clearly don't understand that it's not as simple as "Why can't iPad's and Macs co-exist?" This is a device that is an investment for some people and considered professional grade. This isn't some lifestyle choice like being Pro Life or smoking cigarettes.

We are debating the value and utility of the device, to understand whether we, as either pro users or pro developers, can vouch for this device. If we do not discuss it and firmly stand for either support or denial of it, then people won't have information to research when they make a decision on the device's merit.

You can't just tell people not to discuss things. if you don't like it, you can just leave the forum and come back in 3-4 years when you know where this device is/was.

For me, my vote is:
Mobile OS, it's useless to professional users.
App market doesn't support professional app development.
12" Angry Birds.
Should've supported the Stylus on OSX.
Professional users need X86.
ARM is awful for a full OS.

 

[MH01]

I'm not sure how you can make that claim when the development pipeline for many of these technologies (like the timer chip and pencil) have taken years to come through. I've been watching the pencil patents for around 3 years now, had no clue it was going to be for the Pro.

iPad sales have dropped off for years now. Apple would have realized that people are not upgrading yearly like the iPhone. I believe the significant change was post the iPad going retina. After that there was little reason to update for most on a regular cycle . Just an opinion mate

 

[rowspaxe]

most of you miss the point, its about offering PROFESSIONAL software on an iPad that is obviously targeted to PROFESSIONALS

What non art based pro software would be desirable on a platform that does not have a pointing device/mouse, finder, or access to fast external storage? Video editing? no. 3d? no. Office? no. Audio editing? no. The ipp with pencil is a cool "prosumer" art device, and thats about it

 

[NT1440]

iPad sales have dropped off for years now. Apple would have realized that people are not upgrading yearly like the iPhone. I believe the significant change was post the iPad going retina. After that there was little reason to update for most on a regular cycle . Just an opinion mate

That's certainly true, the Tablet upgrade cycle is certain to be somewhere smack in the middle of a phone cycle and laptop cycle. Which explains why the entire industry has fallen off a cliff.

That said, Apple is still moving almost $2 Billion in iPads each quarter, I'd love to have a problem like that on my hands.

 

[phillyboy82]

Essenar - Your assertions are specious at best and just show how much of a silo you live in when comparing this device to others. Are you a Surface fanboy? You sound like a surface fanboy.

2) You're wrong about Windows. The Surface with full Windows is wildly successful. It's managed to create a massive dent in Apple's dominant market control of tablets from the $500-$1000 range. It also took chunks out of MacBook sales. People like the Surface and that's why the Surface Book launched. Microsoft saw that they had a good model and product and they pushed the envelope further. Developers can produce applications for Windows and just give it stylus support and boom, they have a product they can sell through multiple channels, not just the Microsoft Store, but from their own website.

Surface making a huge dent in iPad/Macbook sales? How does $744m in Surface quarterly sales compare to $9 billion in iPad sales alone? Macbook sales are increasing year/year as well. Not buying that Surface is taking a big chunk out of either. The Surface sales are still niche compared to iPad/Macbook sales. All tablet sales are flat or falling.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/23/microsoft-q3-2015-earnings/

4) I have some very serious questions to your knowledge in computer science as a developer if you don't realize how much easier it would be to implement a touch overlay/view layout to OSX versus implementing x86 in iOS. One is a three month project based on device detected and sub classing your IBActions to IO click gestures. The other is a three to four year multimillion dollar complete OS rebuild because ARM architecture is cooked into iOS core.

iOS and OS X share a common userland already. Implementing a touch overlay might be easy, but what about the UI interactions that will have to be redone for every application that you would care to want to use in tablet mode?

You clearly don't understand that it's not as simple as "Why can't iPad's and Macs co-exist?" This is a device that is an investment for some people and considered professional grade. This isn't some lifestyle choice like being Pro Life or smoking cigarettes.

This makes no sense whatsoever. What lifestyle choice? It's a tool. If you think it will make you more productive by having something that is easier to carry around or use, then you buy the tool. Apple never said it would replace Macs/PCs for every user in existence.

I have three laptops on my desk right now, one is my main work machine and two others are to support PLCs and other industrial equipment in the plant I work at. The maintenance men I work with have thousands of dollars worth of tools in their possession, many of them for niche purposes.

You can have more than computing "tool" to use at your job. If this device is considered a professional device then you either

A) budget for it as a small business owner
B) have work buy it for you

If you think it will help with efficiency or productivity for work then you will find a way to get one to add as another tool to your arsenal.

We are debating the value and utility of the device, to understand whether we, as either pro users or pro developers, can vouch for this device. If we do not discuss it and firmly stand for either support or denial of it, then people won't have information to research when they make a decision on the device's merit.

You can't just tell people not to discuss things. if you don't like it, you can just leave the forum and come back in 3-4 years when you know where this device is/was.

He wasn't saying that. The original iPad, iPad Mini, iPhone 6, iPhone 5, first retina versions of each all had this issue with a lack of applications at first. They will come.

I agree that Apple does need to change its developer model to help accommodate more expensive apps, but keep in mind that the nominal cost of apps is going to $0. They are between a rock and a hard place already.

For me, my vote is:
Mobile OS, it's useless to professional users.
App market doesn't support professional app development.
12" Angry Birds.
Should've supported the Stylus on OSX.
Professional users need X86.
ARM is awful for a full OS.

Mobile OS - the apps will come, sensationalist article aside

App Market - Trials would help, but look again where the price is heading...

12" Angry Birds - seriously? Try another adult argument next time

Should've supported the stylus on OS X - to what benefit? You still have the lack of apps issue

Professional users need x86 - This device is a tool that may either supplement or replace people's PC needs. Distributed computing / resource offloading might disagree with you as well, although you can argue then they they still need x86

ARM is awful for a full OS - Apple's processors are at a mobile i3 level of performance and will continue to improve while Intel has had performance plateaued for years now while they focus on battery life and graphics. ARM is getting there.

 

[Nausicaa]

What non art based pro software would be desirable on a platform that does not have a pointing device/mouse, finder, or access to fast external storage? Video editing? no. 3d? no. Office? no. Audio editing? no. The ipp with pencil is a cool "prosumer" art device, and thats about it

Then why are people complaining about it at all? I agree - as it stands most professional work is designed around a desktop/laptop environment and related OSes and software. They all rely on a mouse and keyboard to function properly. So what advantage does putting all that **** on a touch based devise offer, as so many here seem to want?

 

[ZombiePete]

1) The iPad Pro is not entirely a mobile device. You can't use it when you're walking to your train or on the bus, you'd look ridiculous. You might say "I have no issues using a big screen" and that's fine, but you're not the majority. It's meant to be semi mobile. It's easier to throw in a bag and move around or take on a plane or on business trips. And it's meant to be laid out on a canvas so you can properly write and draw on it.

Since when has "mobile" been defined this way? So your argument is that laptops are not "entirely mobile" because you can't use them when walking? If we're just going to move the goalpost to wherever we need to in order to support our assertions then there's no point in even having a discussion.

The Surface with full Windows is wildly successful. It's managed to create a massive dent in Apple's dominant market control of tablets from the $500-$1000 range. It also took chunks out of MacBook sales.

Do you have actual numbers to back up these assertions, or is it just your gut feeling?

People like the Surface and that's why the Surface Book launched. Microsoft saw that they had a good model and product and they pushed the envelope further.

Microsoft hasn't been coy about the fact that they want the Surface product line to serve as models for OEMs to follow and as a showcase for what they consider to be best-in-class Windows 10 devices. I don't believe for a second that Microsoft thinks they have a huge hit on their hands with the Surface Book; it's priced to serve as a machine for hobbyists/enthusiasts and for OEMs to get a look at what Windows 10 can potentially do with great hardware (and hopefully better drivers/support than the SB is getting at the moment).

I have some very serious questions to your knowledge in computer science as a developer if you don't realize how much easier it would be to implement a touch overlay/view layout to OSX versus implementing x86 in iOS.

And I think that you and several others are greatly overestimating the desire for such a thing based on your own wants and the vocal minority who are demanding an OSX tablet. I don't believe that it is either conducive to Apple's business model (which is demonstrably successful) or of particular value for Apple to head down the road the Microsoft has embarked on. I am no prognosticator and I cannot predict what the long-term future holds, so Apple may be wrong. Based on trends in virtualization, security, and web technologies, however, I don't ultimately believe that the Windows model is where we will see things in 10-20 years.

 

[AdonisSMU]

You clearly don't understand that it's not as simple as "Why can't iPad's and Macs co-exist?" This is a device that is an investment for some people and considered professional grade. This isn't some lifestyle choice like being Pro Life or smoking cigarettes.

We are debating the value and utility of the device, to understand whether we, as either pro users or pro developers, can vouch for this device. If we do not discuss it and firmly stand for either support or denial of it, then people won't have information to research when they make a decision on the device's merit.

You can't just tell people not to discuss things. if you don't like it, you can just leave the forum and come back in 3-4 years when you know where this device is/was.

For me, my vote is:
Mobile OS, it's useless to professional users.
App market doesn't support professional app development.
12" Angry Birds.
Should've supported the Stylus on OSX.
Professional users need X86.
ARM is awful for a full OS.

How does one even define "professional" users? One could argue that, "professional" users can do their work with almost any device you hand them. Professional users don't need X86. X86 is just one solution to a problem that could be solved by many other technologies. You're obsessed with the solution rather than the fact that most people don't know what X86 means and don't care. They only care they can do what they need to do for their "professional" use cases. iPhone was considered a consumer only device before companies adopted it for work purposes because consumers liked it so much and used it so much over their other devices that were considered more "professional".

The iPad Pro is more than sufficient for 95% of "professional" users needs. That's the part that Apple got right here. Apple already has hardware to service the 5% of the time people need it. People can buy another device better suited to the 5% of the time they need as it suits them.

 

[Essenar]

Essenar - Your assertions are specious at best and just show how much of a silo you live in when comparing this device to others. Are you a Surface fanboy? You sound like a surface fanboy.



Surface making a huge dent in iPad/Macbook sales? How does $744m in Surface quarterly sales compare to $9 billion in iPad sales alone? Macbook sales are increasing year/year as well. Not buying that Surface is taking a big chunk out of either. The Surface sales are still niche compared to iPad/Macbook sales. All tablet sales are flat or falling.

http://www.engadget.com/2015/04/23/microsoft-q3-2015-earnings/



iOS and OS X share a common userland already. Implementing a touch overlay might be easy, but what about the UI interactions that will have to be redone for every application that you would care to want to use in tablet mode?



This makes no sense whatsoever. What lifestyle choice? It's a tool. If you think it will make you more productive by having something that is easier to carry around or use, then you buy the tool. Apple never said it would replace Macs/PCs for every user in existence.

I have three laptops on my desk right now, one is my main work machine and two others are to support PLCs and other industrial equipment in the plant I work at. The maintenance men I work with have thousands of dollars worth of tools in their possession, many of them for niche purposes.

You can have more than computing "tool" to use at your job. If this device is considered a professional device then you either

A) budget for it as a small business owner
B) have work buy it for you

If you think it will help with efficiency or productivity for work then you will find a way to get one to add as another tool to your arsenal.



He wasn't saying that. The original iPad, iPad Mini, iPhone 6, iPhone 5, first retina versions of each all had this issue with a lack of applications at first. They will come.

I agree that Apple does need to change its developer model to help accommodate more expensive apps, but keep in mind that the nominal cost of apps is going to $0. They are between a rock and a hard place already.



Mobile OS - the apps will come, sensationalist article aside

App Market - Trials would help, but look again where the price is heading...

12" Angry Birds - seriously? Try another adult argument next time

Should've supported the stylus on OS X - to what benefit? You still have the lack of apps issue

Professional users need x86 - This device is a tool that may either supplement or replace people's PC needs. Distributed computing / resource offloading might disagree with you as well, although you can argue then they they still need x86

ARM is awful for a full OS - Apple's processors are at a mobile i3 level of performance and will continue to improve while Intel has had performance plateaued for years now while they focus on battery life and graphics. ARM is getting there.

You cant just compare performance like that. It doesn't work that way.

If it were as simple as that, ARM would be executing x86 instructions. Seriously read about these architectures before you say something like that. A Geekbench score doesn't mean anything, at all, comparing ARM to x86.

Bottom line, no, you're 100% wrong. ARM processors aren't "faster" or at the "level of performance" of i3's. You have ZERO idea what you're talking about. Like seriously you have NO CLUE.

ARM processors operate linear stack instruction sets based on Reduced Instruction Set Compiling. They're given instructions that pass information in a pipeline on a single send/receive compute cycle. Mobile platforms have streamlined system instructions to benefit RISC because it's faster for simpler instructions. Full x86 processors are much more complicated than that because full operating systems are more complex than that. i3 CPU's and even Atom CPU's use CISC, or rather complex instruction set compiling. An instruction might be to determine the trajectory of an aircraft: CISC will split this up into sub tasks, one to retrieve physical properties of the aircraft from storage, one task to calculate the mass of the plane, another to calculate velocity, another to wait for this data to come back so it can send it to another instruction to determine how far the plane will travel for a set time.

And x86 does this on the fly. all you have to tell an x86 processor is "here are the instructions, do them". ARM can ONLY thread processes that it's already been programmatically defined in its instruction set.

ARM processors can NOT do that, and that's why ARM processors can NOT perform full OS instructions, and that's why you have NO IDEA what you're talking about and why I think it's an insult to my industry that reviewers constantly regurgitate GeekBench scores as a means of translating a tablet or mobile phone's processor speed as a comparison to a desktop or mobile processor.

And no, it's not as simple as ARM applying a patch or some other retort you're going to use. This is basic level kernel programming. I've studied for research on how to apply asynchronous "concurrency" programming to linear stack computation instructions and as of now, it's the leading reason why concurrency platforms perform worse on simple linear stacks than simple linear "legacy" compilers.

If you seriously think that Qualcomm and Samsung are putting out faster GeekBench processors because they're actually catching up to Intel, you are very sadly mistaken and it's kind of sad how little knowledge you have on the subject but are trying to express it using some tech review site.

To get ARM processors to perform CISC would require a complete rebuild of the core processor computation logic at the processor level. It would change how every ARM based operating system runs and would create MASSIVE latency at compile because of memory addressing for cactus stack instruction sets.

And you can bet every dollar in your bank account that companies like 3d Studio, AutoDesk, Unity and etc, are absolutely, without doubt, you can call them and ask their engineers, using concurrency and multi threaded CISC in their applications to reduce rendering time and instruction stack space. This is why Xeon processors are used in parallel computing and not an array of iPhones or something.

Adding parallel computing and CISC to a processor creates latency because the processor itself has to divide its worker threads into stack spaces to accept instructions and it would be much easier to get a processor that uses CISC to accept RISC (because it's simply a linear stack) than it would be to make a processor that uses RISC able to handle CISC. In effect, the RISC processor would just end up being a CISC processor, prone to the same instruction set stack handling delays that x86 processors have. So when that happens, ARM processors won't be ARM processors anymore and they'll be so much slower than Intel x86 processors, that it'll be pathetically sad to compare them.

Please read about this stuff before you jump to these sensational and false claims about what ARM processors can do compared to x86:

http://www.androidauthority.com/arm-vs-x86-key-differences-explained-568718/
http://www.extremetech.com/computin...its-own-arm-chips-in-macbooks-and-the-mac-pro
http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14794460/how-does-the-arm-architecture-differ-from-x86

 

[rowspaxe]

How does one even define "professional" users? One could argue that, "professional" users can do their work with almost any device you hand them. Professional users don't need X86. X86 is just one solution to a problem that could be solved by many other technologies. You're obsessed with the solution rather than the fact that most people don't know what X86 means and don't care.

Professionals typically provide digital artwork in preferred file formats--usually photoshop, w layers.
I think ios has some great tools--but professionals will likely want to to stay in "pro" formats

 

[dk001]

Then how do you explain all those desktop class apps with desktop class prices that are in the App Store right now and making quite a lot of money? ...?

What desktop class apps? Maybe I am looking in the wrong area but other than some niche apps, I'm seeing very little in this space.

 

[MH01]

That's certainly true, the Tablet upgrade cycle is certain to be somewhere smack in the middle of a phone cycle and laptop cycle. Which explains why the entire industry has fallen off a cliff.

That said, Apple is still moving almost $2 Billion in iPads each quarter, I'd love to have a problem like that on my hands.

How much are they moving from iPhone sales? See the problem?

 

[rowspaxe]

Then why are people complaining about it at all? I agree - as it stands most professional work is designed around a desktop/laptop environment and related OSes and software. They all rely on a mouse and keyboard to function properly. So what advantage does putting all that **** on a touch based devise offer, as so many here seem to want?

Because art related pro apps also want a pen interface. This is the value proposition of the surface hybrid model--you get both

 

[dk001]

...

The iPad Pro is more than sufficient for 95% of "professional" users needs. That's the part that Apple got right here. Apple already has hardware to service the 5% of the time people need it. People can buy another device better suited to the 5% of the time they need as it suits them.

I am a professional user. Engineer. Process / Industrial / Quality. Have a couple of hats.
There is literally nothing professional the iPad Pro can do for me. All my software runs x86 > Notebook/Desktop. Iv'e tried the iPad route.
Personally, I have no clue where you are coming from.

 

[MH01]

How does one even define "professional" users? One could argue that, "professional" users can do their work with almost any device you hand them. Professional users don't need X86. X86 is just one solution to a problem that could be solved by many other technologies. You're obsessed with the solution rather than the fact that most people don't know what X86 means and don't care. They only care they can do what they need to do for their "professional" use cases. iPhone was considered a consumer only device before companies adopted it for work purposes because consumers liked it so much and used it so much over their other devices that were considered more "professional".

The iPad Pro is more than sufficient for 95% of "professional" users needs. That's the part that Apple got right here. Apple already has hardware to service the 5% of the time people need it. People can buy another device better suited to the 5% of the time they need as it suits them.

Is this the % you want to believe or have you actually got a reference ?

 

[ZombiePete]

I am a professional user. Engineer. Process / Industrial / Quality. Have a couple of hats.
There is literally nothing professional the iPad Pro can do for me. All my software runs x86 > Notebook/Desktop. Iv'e tried the iPad route.
Personally, I have no clue where you are coming from.

So your experience defines that 95%?

 

[lympero]

The problem with iPad pro is that it is not a pro device. I really want a device which I can use on my couch and let's say open Xcode and review some code or some parts of my app that I don't like and need to redo.
Anyway iPad pro should be renamed by Apple to iPad XL. End of story

 

[dk001]

So your experience defines that 95%?

No. Never said it did.
For me there is no way to perform 95% of my job with an iPad Pro.
Other than email - some - all my professional work runs in the x86 environment. There are no usable ARM alternatives.

 

[MacPro2014]

So your experience defines that 95%?

I think the thread has become a bit facetious on percentages I know that I am with him on software limitations. I utilize SPSS and STATA software. Neither of these two have a mobile/tablet version. Perhaps this is due to their computing requirements that the tablets can not maintain...or the cost factor. I know each program can exceed a couple of thousand. I have also been unable to find any meaningful alternative version on any app store (iOS or Android). So it means that much of the research/academia profession is also limited as computer replacements.

 

[dyn]

If that is so.

Why not put iOS on all Mac computers as well?
Create a new front end (for when it's running on the desktop) and all will be lovely

Because desktop/laptops, tablets/smartphones are different beasts. Biggest difference isn't size but interface. Desktop/laptop are all about keyboard and mouse but tablet/smartphone are all about touch. This requires a completely different design for the OS and the apps running on it. The only difference is that Apple keeps the operating systems separate but Windows puts them into 1 OS. It also shows that using a desktop with touch isn't all that useful (using a trackpad is nearly the same experience, you just miss being able to exactly tap what you want to tap).

I'm a developer, full time, and unless you are actually a developer, you really have zero justification speculating what we can or cannot make. Don't just blindly throw out sensational statements like, "Developers can make a ton of money with cheap apps" without understanding the business side of it.

The same can be said about "we cannot do this". The problem with us techies is our lack of creativity. We look at what we can currently do technically but we don't experiment all that much with these new interfaces. There are some that do. Same thing happens in various different businesses where they now have competition from these startups that heavily use things like the internet, smartphones, tablets, etc. They may look harmless but in the long run they can be a major threat to current businesses.

You might have an idea, but there's no guarantee that idea will actually receive the attention it deserves. And your owners have spent thousands of dollars paying you, UX designers, marketers, graphics designers to build this idea and publish it, only for users to slam it because it's not free or for them to want to pay $2~3 for it.

To add to this: if you think other businesses are any different, they don't. There is a lot of competition also due to globalisation (everyone on the globe is now a competitor instead of just the local ones) but it also gives you opportunities (you can reach more people). The competition is the biggest issue and this can also be seen in the various app stores. A lot of the developers struggle and there is a lot of discussion about getting into the spotlight. Apple has had to change the algorithms for this a couple of times.

So lots of competition and that requires you to do things differently. No easy task.

1) The iPad Pro is not entirely a mobile device. You can't use it when you're walking to your train or on the bus, you'd look ridiculous.

You also look ridiculous when using a normal iPad for shooting pics and yet many people do exactly that. Not only that, there already are many people using large A4 sketchbooks when on the road. Not to mention students studying their material (usually consists of more paper). Suddenly using that iPad Pro on the road isn't all that ridiculous any more Especially when used as a replacement for said sketchbook. And let's be honest, there are many people taking their 27" iMacs to Starbucks. Not to mention how common the use of 15" and smaller notebooks are.

 

[mw360]

How does one even define "professional" users? One could argue that, "professional" users can do their work with almost any device you hand them. Professional users don't need X86. X86 is just one solution to a problem that could be solved by many other technologies. You're obsessed with the solution rather than the fact that most people don't know what X86 means and don't care. They only care they can do what they need to do for their "professional" use cases. iPhone was considered a consumer only device before companies adopted it for work purposes because consumers liked it so much and used it so much over their other devices that were considered more "professional".

The iPad Pro is more than sufficient for 95% of "professional" users needs. That's the part that Apple got right here. Apple already has hardware to service the 5% of the time people need it. People can buy another device better suited to the 5% of the time they need as it suits them.

These threads are alrways pretty clear on what 'professional' means:

A 'Professional' means a person who can't work on an iPad, such as an editor working on a 4K feature film.

A 'non professional' is a lesser person who deals with data which is small enough to fit on flash storage and be transferable via wifi, such as novels, school curricula, patient prescriptions, airliner flight manuals, or financial records for multinational corporations.

Hope that helps.

 

[ZombiePete]

These threads are alrways pretty clear on what 'professional' means:

A 'Professional' means a person who can't work on an iPad, such as an editor working on a 4K feature film.

A 'non professional' is a lesser person who deals with data which is small enough to fit on flash storage and be transferable via wifi, such as novels, school curricula, patient prescriptions, airliner flight manuals, or financial records for multinational corporations.

Hope that helps.

You know what? This sums this all up so perfectly that I consider the matter closed. Thank you.