Apple Highlights Five Reasons the iPad Pro Can Be Your Next Computer

[tromboneaholic]

There’s nothing truly revolutionary about Apple’s recent devices, just incremental upgrades to technology Jobs pioneered,

Steve Jobs never envisioned Apple Watch.

at a substantial cost, 10 years ago.

And as Apple did with the watch 5 years ago, they are spending a substantial amount ($14.2 Billion) on researching and developing new product categories - possibly even working on replacing computers and iPhones with wearables one day.

 

[dk001]

Hybrids are an answer to Apple's iPad that aren't generating much in the way of revenue or sales compared to iPad.

Not really.
People and businesses are buying hybrids to gain a touch interface on their computers. They are not buying them to replace an iPad. They may have looked at an iPad as a hybrid device.

Some of the benefits of a tablet with the functionality of a pc.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Not really.
People and businesses are buying hybrids to gain a touch interface on their computers. They are not buying them to replace an iPad. They may have looked at an iPad as a hybrid device.

Some of the benefits of a tablet with the functionality of a pc.

The iPad was Apple's answer to NetBooks, and hybrids were a response to iPad. Microsoft developed the Surface, and is supporting it, as a way to protect Windows from iOS, not macOS.

 

[dk001]

The iPad was Apple's answer to NetBooks, and hybrids were a response to iPad. Microsoft developed the Surface, and is supporting it, as a way to protect Windows from iOS, not macOS.

Hybrids were more of a response to the Surface.
When I originally bought an iPad, I was not looking for another pc.
When I bought a hybrid (and the company I work for), looking for a pc that has tablet like functionality to improve the user experience / workflow.

An iPad is trying top be a pc.
A hybrid is adding tablet functionality to a pc.

 

[Mac 128]

Steve Jobs never envisioned Apple Watch.



And as Apple did with the watch 5 years ago, they are spending a substantial amount ($14.2 Billion) on researching and developing new product categories - possibly even working on replacing computers and iPhones with wearables one day.

I don't believe for a minute that Steve Jobs did not envision an Apple Watch. For starters, Jobs is the guy who seized on the iPod nano being used as a watch, and had Apple create a dozen more watch faces released on the updated nano, the day before he died, specifically to be used as a watch.

And then there's this prototype from Jobs' hand-picked designer Hartmut Esslinger from Jobs first tour of duty. So it's really hard to believe Jobs never envisioned Apple making a watch or a phone.

Regardless, there's always a substantial investment in R&D that never goes anywhere, which arguably every product subsidizes. But when it does, the products themselves recoup the actual costs, as with all businesses. They can lower the price and make up the cost even as they sell more, and make less profit per unit, particularly as a product becomes a commodity item with incremental upgrades per model. This is all standard operating business procedures.

 

[tromboneaholic]

I don't believe for a minute that Steve Jobs did not envision an Apple Watch. For starters, Jobs is the guy who seized on the iPod nano being used as a watch, and had Apple create a dozen more watch faces released on the updated nano, the day before he died, specifically to be used as a watch.

And then there's this prototype from Jobs' hand-picked designer Hartmut Esslinger from Jobs first tour of duty. So it's really hard to believe Jobs never envisioned Apple making a watch or a phone.

Regardless, there's always a substantial investment in R&D that never goes anywhere, which arguably every product subsidizes. But when it does, the products themselves recoup the actual costs, as with all businesses. They can lower the price and make up the cost even as they sell more, and make less profit per unit, particularly as a product becomes a commodity item with incremental upgrades per model. This is all standard operating business procedures.

The current Apple Watch had nothing to do with Steve. The project started after he passed, and Jony Ive was quoted in an interview saying he and Jobs had never discussed working on a watch.

Also, AirPods.

 

[Mac 128]

The current Apple Watch had nothing to do with Steve. The project started after he passed, and Jony Ive was quoted in an interview saying he and Jobs had never discussed working on a watch.

Also, AirPods.

We only have Tim's and Jony's word for that. We have no idea what Steve knew, or didn't know. The fact he had exposure to a watch concept for over 30 years, particularly in the last two years of his life, suggests strongly that he would have had discussions about developing such a project. The AW has been described as Cook's first product without Jobs, and as such carried enormous weight for them to accept sole credit -- what would be the story from them had it failed? So I just don't trust we're getting the whole story, and there's plenty of evidence that Jobs would have been involved in initial discussions about such a product, which Jony Ive has been passionate about -- the TimeBand prototype was even developed under Ive's tenure. So believe what you want.

And AirPods? Seriously? There was an Apple bluetooth headset introduced with the first iPhone. Steve Jobs loved music. It's highly unlikely he never discussed improving wireless audio. Who knows how many prototypes of wireless headphones were presented to Jobs which he rejected as not being good enough to put Apple's name on. But whatever ...

 

[tromboneaholic]

The AW has been described as Cook's first product without Jobs, and as such carried enormous weight for them to accept sole credit -- what would be the story from them had it failed?

A quick Google search would have shown the message at launch, before success was guaranteed, was that Apple Watch was 100% post Steve Jobs.

 

[ipponrg]

A quick Google search would have shown the message at launch, before success was guaranteed, was that Apple Watch was 100% post Steve Jobs.

https://www.cultofmac.com/427636/steve-jobs-may-have-influenced-apple-watch-more-than-you-know/

 

[Mac 128]

A quick Google search would have shown the message at launch, before success was guaranteed, was that Apple Watch was 100% post Steve Jobs.

But the watch was a success from launch if Apple and its fans are to be believed. Besides you're making the claim not me.

Regardless, there is no proof of that other than statements by post Steve Jobs Apple employees, on the shoulders of which rested the entire future of Apple at the time. True or not, it was in their best interest to deny Steve Jobs was involved at all.

This is all the proof I need that Jobs was at least part of the initial discussions:

 

[Webster's Mac]

Apple today shared a new short video focused on the recently released 11 and 12.9-inch iPad Pro models, listing five reasons why the tablets can be your next computer.

Apple's list of reasons why the iPad Pro can replace a computer are as follows:

1. It's more powerful than most computers.
   
2. It's versatile. It's a scanner, camera, editing suite, notepad, cinema, music studio, book, and a computer.
   
3. It goes anywhere thanks to LTE.
   
4. It's as easy as this (with a focus on gestures).
   
5. It's even better with Apple Pencil.

This is Apple's first ad for the new iPad Pro models, but it has long advertised the iPad Pro as an alternative to a computer. Apple uses the tagline "like a computer unlike any computer," in this ad, which is something new the company has been trying out.

Apple's 11 and 12.9-inch iPad Pro models were first introduced in late October and shipped out in November. The new iPads feature edge-to-edge displays with Face ID and no Home button, powerful A12X processors with performance on par with many Mac notebooks, USB-C to connect to 4K monitors and USB-C accessories, and thinner bodies.

The 11-inch iPad Pro starts at $799 for 64GB of storage, while the 12.9-inch iPad Pro starts at $999, also for 64GB of storage.

Article Link: Apple Highlights Five Reasons the iPad Pro Can Be Your Next Computer

Just in: Users highlight 100 reasons why iPad Pro can NOT be their next computer...

 

[Brammy]

I've been running an informal survey of the coffee shop near work. It's near a library and a small college. The college is small enough it doesn't even have a campus. Every time I go in, I take a look at what people are using for devices.

Largely, it's MacBooks. A decent amount are older "lit logo" MacBooks, but I've noticed a ton of 12" MacBooks lately, with three there today. The next largest grouping is corporate laptops. The Surface computers make a respectable showing.

iPads in general are the low quantity. I have only seen one or two identifiable Pros (either the size or a Smart Keyboard).

It's not a scientific survey at all, but I have seen more Surfaces there than iPads.

 

[tromboneaholic]

But the watch was a success from launch if Apple and its fans are to be believed. Besides you're making the claim not me.

Regardless, there is no proof of that other than statements by post Steve Jobs Apple employees, on the shoulders of which rested the entire future of Apple at the time. True or not, it was in their best interest to deny Steve Jobs was involved at all.

This is all the proof I need that Jobs was at least part of the initial discussions:

You don’t own an Apple Watch, do you?

 

[Bacillus]

Apple's profit margins are actually less now than they were under Steve Jobs.
The difference is Apple sold 218 million iPhones in 2018. The last year Steve was CEO of Apple, the company sold 72 million iPhones - and had higher profit margins than today.
Tim Cook's Apple got the appliance out to 141 million more people this year than Steve Jobs' best year.
Steve Jobs' Apple sold 32 million iPads that same year, while Tim Cook's Apple sold 44 million iPads, or 12 million more in 2018. That might seem like a small increase, but the increase alone is 4 times the number of Surface devices sold during the same period.

Comparing those profit margins with today’s Apple (with its immense miscellaneous costs for real estate, facilities, maximized write-offs, opportunity reservations for takeovers, fiscal policy etc. etc.) doesn’t make sense. It hardly has anything to do with hw provisioning cost anymore.
The current Apple is a money machine - targeted to transfer wealth faster than anything Jobs ever imagined (or wanted). Your business perspective is wrong.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Comparing those profit margins with today’s Apple (with its immense miscellaneous costs for real estate, facilities, maximized write-offs, opportunity reservations for takeovers, fiscal policy etc. etc.) doesn’t make sense. It hardly has anything to do with hw provisioning cost anymore.
The current Apple is a money machine - targeted to transfer wealth faster than anything Jobs ever imagined (or wanted). Your business perspective is wrong.

I’m comparing one BOM to another BOM and leaving Capital Expenditures out of it.

BOM A bill of materials or product structure is a list of the raw materials, sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, parts, and the quantities of each needed to manufacture an end product.

Capital Expenditure money spent by a business or organization on acquiring or maintaining fixed assets, such as land, buildings, and equipment.

 

[Bacillus]

I’m comparing one BOM to another BOM and leaving Capital Expenditures out of it.

BOM A bill of materials or product structure is a list of the raw materials, sub-assemblies, intermediate assemblies, sub-components, parts, and the quantities of each needed to manufacture an end product.

Capital Expenditure money spent by a business or organization on acquiring or maintaining fixed assets, such as land, buildings, and equipment.

That’s exactly where my financial appreciation for Apple did stop.
CapEx under Cook has immensely exceeded BOM (which has no practical impact anymore)
Most of what you pay for an iPhone gets absorbed into finance assets, real estate, luxury that meets the Angela Ahrendts-standards and an “appropriate” shopping experience. Not the iPhone itself.
R&D and patent expenditures are impressive but only modest in the light of CapEx - and only a fraction of it reaches actual production.
Electronics becoming more advanced, more integrated, large scale production- and provisioning costs savings get lost before ever reaching the customer.

 

[tromboneaholic]

That’s exactly where my financial appreciation for Apple did stop.
CapEx under Cook has immensely exceeded BOM (which has no practical impact anymore)
Most of what you pay for an iPhone is now spent to finance assets, real estate, luxury that meets the Angela Ahrendts-standards and similar shopping experience. Not the iPhone itself.
R&D and patent expenditures are impressive - but only a fraction of that reach actual production.
Electronics becoming more advanced, more integrated, large scale production- and provisioning costs savings get lost before ever reaching a customer.

CapEx has increased as a result of Apple selling more iPhones, but the profit margin on each iPhone is actually less.

In regards to Apple's retail experience, when I had a problem with my HTC and Samsung phones, I had to go to the carrier for service. I hate dealing with the carrier. Sometimes they would tell me I had to contact the manufacturer, and then I would get bounced back and forth. With Apple, I go to the Apple Store or call them up. I don't have to deal with the carrier at all.

If anything, the Apple stores are usually packed and a bit crowded, so I can understand why they are making bigger stores now and adding trees to dampen some of the sound.

I really don't know why someone would be angry about that. I wish more companies made an effort in this area.

 

[Bacillus]

CapEx has increased as a result of Apple selling more iPhones, but the profit margin on each iPhone is actually less.
In regards to Apple's retail experience, when I had a problem with my HTC and Samsung phones, I had to go to the carrier for service. I hate dealing with the carrier. Sometimes they would tell me I had to contact the manufacturer, and then I would get bounced back and forth. With Apple, I go to the Apple Store or call them up. I don't have to deal with the carrier at all.
If anything, the Apple stores are usually packed and a bit crowded, so I can understand why they are making bigger stores now and adding trees to dampen some of the sound
I really don't know why someone would be angry about that. I wish more companies made an effort in this area.

Using a follow-the-money approach, you’d see how much capital went into real-estate and assets that aren’t part of their daily business, comparative to other brands or entire industries.
The biggest aim they have is transferring their immense cash reserves into worthwile assets, as the pile of money continues to grow and static/unused capital in a company tends to become a source of concern (in the financial world it impacts return per invested dollar) and criticism from stakeholders, customers, the world around (communities, states, continents) that start to get anxious and feel exploited/ripped-off
The same applies for other FADANG companies but they get less attention though.
Tim’s aim is to keep all this matter out of the news - hence his carefully crafted public image of the “humble businessman” who is engaged with all kinds of social issue’s.

The more spacious “shopping experience” that you like could have been achieved by a fraction of the cost when they would have targeted less historic and monumental buildings - but that doesn’t contribute to their ultra-premium branding and external asset investment necessity.
These are the kinds of things Steve never had to deal with - and actually despised.
For me, I don’t begrudge them but always ask: what’s in it for me as a customer ?
Nobody answered that yet

 

[tromboneaholic]

Using a follow-the-money approach, you’d see how much capital went into real-estate and assets that aren’t part of their daily business, comparative to other brands or entire industries.

In the US, Apple is consistently the highest ranking retailer when it comes to sales per square foot, yet your arguments sound similar to the arguments I read when Steve Jobs opened the first Apple Store.

The Apple ecosystem extends beyond hardware and software to also include retail spaces, and I don't understand why it seems to make you so angry.

 

[Bacillus]

In the US, Apple is consistently the highest ranking retailer when it comes to sales per square foot, yet your arguments sound similar to the arguments I read when Steve Jobs opened the first Apple Store.
The Apple ecosystem extends beyond hardware and software to also include retail spaces, and I don't understand why it seems to make you so angry.

All that could have been achieved by a fraction of the cost when they would have targeted less historic and monumental buildings. All luxury-paraphernalia targeted to make for an ultra-premium brand - it’s not about being a tech company anymore but Apple are merely concerned with their next phase, finance and the sequels of super-capitalism - which are all side activities to me.
These are the kinds of things Steve never had to deal with - and actually despised.
As to me, I don’t begrudge them but always ask: what’s in it for me as a customer ?
The answer is: ehhh....don’t ask, concentrate on the next keynote and just contribute
The real answer is: most what you pay goes into corporate wealth to the extreme, instead of product.
Again: follow the money (as you don’t)

 

[tromboneaholic]

These are the kinds of things Steve never had to deal with - and actually despised.

Steve Jobs set it all into motion. In fact, one of his last public appearances was before the Cupertino City Council seeking approval to build Apple's huge "spaceship" campus.

For me, I don’t begrudge them but always ask: what’s in it for me as a customer ?
The answer is: ehhh....don’t ask, concentrate on the next keynote and just contribute

I have seen several other members on MacRumors tell you what they see is in Apple's retail experience for themselves as customers. That wasn't what they said.

 

[Bacillus]

Steve Jobs set it all into motion. In fact, one of his last public appearances was before the Cupertino City Council seeking approval to build Apple's huge "spaceship" campus.

I don’t begrudge the spaceship HQ, merely 100’s monumental (merely European) residences that are merely symbols of supremacy and over the top

I have seen several other members on MacRumors tell you what they see is in Apple's retail experience for themselves as customers. That wasn't what they said.

OK, but most tech enthusiasts and Mac users that feel neglected do agree.

 

[tromboneaholic]

OK, but most tech enthusiasts and Mac users that feel neglected do agree.

As a nerd who has been an Apple customer since 1996, I will tell you nerds were never Apple's customer base.

An Apple customer has always been someone who wanted to use their device to do something else with it, something more important than the device.

Tech enthusiasts are like music, art, and movie critics. Sometimes they just don't understand they are not the audience.

It's like this video in the article: "5 reasons the iPad Pro can be your next computer."
Look at the visuals in the ad.
Look at the people.
Look at what they are doing.
Look at where they are.

These are Apple's customers. That is who Apple is talking to when they say "your" computer.

 

[Vjosullivan]

It's like this video in the article: "5 reasons the iPad Pro can be your next computer."
Look at the visuals in the ad.
Look at the people.
Look at what they are doing.
Look at where they are.

These are Apple's customers. That is who Apple is talking to when they say "your" computer.

The people in the ads are generic “pretty people” doing “interesting things” and having a great time with their happy, healthy, smiley friends. Aspirational models of what we think we are or want to be. Just the same as in car ads or perfume ads or alcohol ads, etc. Apple doesn’t care if you yourself are a nerd or creative or anything, it just want you to think that buying their stuff is a ticket to the lifestyle portrayed in the adverts.

 

[Bacillus]

As a nerd who has been an Apple customer since 1996, I will tell you nerds were never Apple's customer base.

An Apple customer has always been someone who wanted to use their device to do something else with it, something more important than the device.

Tech enthusiasts are like music, art, and movie critics. Sometimes they just don't understand they are not the audience.

It's like this video in the article: "5 reasons the iPad Pro can be your next computer."
Look at the visuals in the ad.
Look at the people.
Look at what they are doing.
Look at where they are.
These are Apple's customers. That is who Apple is talking to when they say "your" computer.

I can accept not being “the audience” of those ads.
I can accept not being the Cookette “Pro” that is actually a cappuchino pro (streetguy being flattered)
I can accept luxury and greed to some agree.
I cannot accept the overcapitalist craze, and agnostic selfadmiration with Apple’s leadership while they lose cutting edge.
Look at the S10 design - I know it’s just a rumor yet - but just look at it.
And there are so many examples where they gave away their leadership, and lamented b/c of being distracted with what Steve called the wrong things.