So Master Wang is arguing that because an Intel chip costs 18% more than an aging A6 CPU in relation to the total cost if the devices, Apple will move to A8, who's cost we do not know, and move to a tablet platform, where according to themselves, the screen costs 19% more than the LCD in the laptop? So basically, it is safe to assume that the margins in both devices would arguably be very similar? Am I missing his point here, or is the argument simoly flawed from the start?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Said to Be Targeting Fall 2014 Launch for 12-Inch iPad Focused on Enterprise
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Sounds more like your empty wallet´s dream.
The "rest of the industry" is in a world of hurt since years.
Did you ever mention the lines in front of AppleStores? People buying all kinds of iPads at its current price tag.
You may not have noticed, but iPads are actually quite big in the enterprise sector. I can myself sit at home, and use my iPad to write Word documents that get stored on my company's servers.
Except that your example, the Xserve was no more efficient and lots more expensive than a Linux or Windows server. Plus hard nose IT guys maintain servers, and they mostly prefer the latter OSes.
iOS, OTOH, is a very efficient and cost effective OS for businesses (from a maintenance perspective), and used by the people running and working the business, i.e., non-nerds, not the backend network guys. It's why for the first time EVER Apple was able to penetrate this market. iPhones and iPads are well adopted in the corporate world of all sizes and market caps. Plus when a company doesn't have to spend beaucoup bucks to train employees on a complex system that's the biggest bullet point of all.
Now as to the market for a 12" iPad, different story. I don't know how business would benefit from it. It has less functionality than a laptop, likely to have a price tag well above a nicely equipped ultrabook, and probably not all that handhold-able because of it's mass. It seems to be more for graphics people be it artistists, videographers, photographers, or architecture, but that is a niche market.
A few years ago I predicted Intel should be very, very worried about the mobile devices.
One, because it signaled a shift away from traditional desktops and notebooks. That's already happened.
Two, because I predict mobile devices are more likely to move up the food chain than desktops are to move down. Endgame: I predicted someday we will see ARM based Macs that inherit more from iOS than OSX, and Intel may be relegated to Mac Pro only and eventually eliminated. Low and mid-range Macs could easily be massively multi-core ARM devices running a beefed up iOS, for what people use them for.
This also solves the problem of touch interface on OSX, something Apple hasn't shown interest in outside closed doors.
Doesn't anybody find it interesting that there hasn't been a "Rosetta" for running iOS apps on OSX? Even the XCode simulator is actually an x86 build of your iOS app, not an emulator. That means the door is already open for Intel-based iOS devices, but what about the reverse, ARM-based Macs? Obviously Apple's thought about bridging the two worlds, much like they thought about running on Intel long before the switch was made official.
This is the opening shot in that transition.
One, because it signaled a shift away from traditional desktops and notebooks. That's already happened.
Two, because I predict mobile devices are more likely to move up the food chain than desktops are to move down. Endgame: I predicted someday we will see ARM based Macs that inherit more from iOS than OSX, and Intel may be relegated to Mac Pro only and eventually eliminated. Low and mid-range Macs could easily be massively multi-core ARM devices running a beefed up iOS, for what people use them for.
This also solves the problem of touch interface on OSX, something Apple hasn't shown interest in outside closed doors.
Doesn't anybody find it interesting that there hasn't been a "Rosetta" for running iOS apps on OSX? Even the XCode simulator is actually an x86 build of your iOS app, not an emulator. That means the door is already open for Intel-based iOS devices, but what about the reverse, ARM-based Macs? Obviously Apple's thought about bridging the two worlds, much like they thought about running on Intel long before the switch was made official.
This is the opening shot in that transition.
Last edited:
Wow! So the only thing standing in a way for business adoption is 2 extra diagonal inches. Wow! Cool analytical thinking and analysis. Way to go... LOL
And do these apps need the quad and octo core processors used by Android tablets?
not good enough for enterprise
I've used Apple products since 1997. During this time I had an exclusive relationship with Apple technology. I loved the first iPhone when it was released. I was one of the first to run out and buy the first iPad. Now several years later I've grown really disillusioned with Apple iOS, especially for Enterprise tasks.
First, I'm tired of hearing about what iOS can't do or what an iPad can't do simply because Apple won't let it do these things.
Here is a great basic example: in the enterprise (or even small startup business) we need to attach multiple files to an email. We dont send only photos! Sending one file at a time from a sandboxed app file system does not work because there are often a half dozen or more people on an email thread. It is necessary to "hit paperclip, attach, send". IOS does not allow this and forces you to jump through multiple hoops and copy/paste files across applications.
Second, Apple devices are premium priced devices costing hundreds more than competing hardware. Apple makes the best hardware - there is no dispute here. The problem is services integration. iCloud is abysmal for sharing and collaboration. Its great if you are a single person that has no need to share a document or collaborate in the enterprise, but frankly for me it is a step backward from even the simple features of idisk (which was actually useful to me!)
Third, Apple devices are not alone in the market anymore. As much as I hate Google philosophically, their services are far superior and made up half of that "magical" original experience of the first iPhone. Moreover, you can buy a much cheaper Android device and not be told that sending file attachments are something you "aren't meant to do" on a mobile device. This kind of apologist excuse is hogwash. I spent hundreds of dollars on an iPad and I was hoping for more than a nice game system with personal (not enterprise class) mail and photos.
I don't think that Apple should open up or change their integrated approach - but they Need to become more collaboration centric and less philosophically allergic to the kind of simple functions larger organizations (and those who work within them) need.
I've used Apple products since 1997. During this time I had an exclusive relationship with Apple technology. I loved the first iPhone when it was released. I was one of the first to run out and buy the first iPad. Now several years later I've grown really disillusioned with Apple iOS, especially for Enterprise tasks.
First, I'm tired of hearing about what iOS can't do or what an iPad can't do simply because Apple won't let it do these things.
Here is a great basic example: in the enterprise (or even small startup business) we need to attach multiple files to an email. We dont send only photos! Sending one file at a time from a sandboxed app file system does not work because there are often a half dozen or more people on an email thread. It is necessary to "hit paperclip, attach, send". IOS does not allow this and forces you to jump through multiple hoops and copy/paste files across applications.
Second, Apple devices are premium priced devices costing hundreds more than competing hardware. Apple makes the best hardware - there is no dispute here. The problem is services integration. iCloud is abysmal for sharing and collaboration. Its great if you are a single person that has no need to share a document or collaborate in the enterprise, but frankly for me it is a step backward from even the simple features of idisk (which was actually useful to me!)
Third, Apple devices are not alone in the market anymore. As much as I hate Google philosophically, their services are far superior and made up half of that "magical" original experience of the first iPhone. Moreover, you can buy a much cheaper Android device and not be told that sending file attachments are something you "aren't meant to do" on a mobile device. This kind of apologist excuse is hogwash. I spent hundreds of dollars on an iPad and I was hoping for more than a nice game system with personal (not enterprise class) mail and photos.
I don't think that Apple should open up or change their integrated approach - but they Need to become more collaboration centric and less philosophically allergic to the kind of simple functions larger organizations (and those who work within them) need.
Can we start referring to it as the iPad Pro? Ever since the 5th gen iPad was released as iPad Air, it seems inevitable that there will be a Pro.
If the original iPad had been an extra 2" diagonal, you would not have liked it, and been critical of it ?
Why did they make phone that was also a MP3 player and a Camera?
You think they should of only sold iPods and an Apple iCamera and not make a hybrid device like the iPhone which brought them together into one item?
It's 9.7 inches, and yes I've tried to use an 12" tablet before (16:9 format though) and it just wasn't very handy at all.
No Apple is against trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. Microsoft is telling you no compromises but that's not really true. How often do you see Surface promotional shots without kickstand out and keyboard attached? Or in portrait mode? And Surface Pro 2 weighs 2 lbs, Surface 2 weighing about the same as 4th gen iPad. How many people would use it to read a book? I read books on my iPad Air all the time. IMO Surface is much more laptop than tablet. But then why not just buy a touch enabled Ultrabook with better keyboard and trackpad instead? Of course people can/will argue that iPad doesn't replace a laptop but Apple never claimed it did. Apple's not the one claiming no compromises.
Not true. Those apps now load and perform twice as fast because the processor has almost double the bits to work with. Here's how it works.
32-bit can only load 32 words (aka a bit) a second. Think about how many words are posted on your Facebook wall? I bet there's hundreds. That's why iOS Facebook takes so long to load up on any pre-64-bit iPads.
But 64-bit can load twice as many words a second, which means it automatically cuts load times in half just by being 64-bit.
See, 64-bit is innovative. It's better than more ram (which only stores gigs, not words), or a better graphics card (I already have all the colors I'll ever need on my current iPad), but I could always use faster word loading. Apple did it again, and blew away the industry with yet another never before seen technology, and now everyone else is gonna copy their double-bits innovation.
Very likely, but disappointing too....
I see this is a vote by "the masses" for portability over raw computing power. That reflects the current reality, of course; most computer users aren't doing anything with them that taxes even the lower-end CPUs.
Still, this would be a step backwards, IMO. The trend we've seen in personal computing from the beginning has always focused primarily on increasing storage capacity and processing power. As prices come down to build a given component, a more capable and most costly one is substituted, keeping the retail price approximately the same but giving people more functionality for the dollar. When the hardware most people owned was more capable than the software in popular use? Software developers were free to develop more powerful software, comfortable in the idea that most potential customers already had systems that could now handle it.
The trend I'm seeing now is different. People are clamoring for "cheaper, thinner, lighter!" and saying, "Not too powerful? Fine... I only need to surf the net, do email and a few other basic things anyway!" This will encourage stagnation in the computing world, IMO. Yes, a lot can be done "in the cloud" on the server side, where presumably, we'll still have the option of buying powerful, high-end systems. But that brings a regression to the days of mainframes and minicomputers with dumb terminals attached! All the real computing power gets centralized with a relative few entities, and "the kid down the block" can't create the next big, amazing new thing anymore. (He only has a tablet computer that can use the "big guys'" offerings.)
I see this is a vote by "the masses" for portability over raw computing power. That reflects the current reality, of course; most computer users aren't doing anything with them that taxes even the lower-end CPUs.
Still, this would be a step backwards, IMO. The trend we've seen in personal computing from the beginning has always focused primarily on increasing storage capacity and processing power. As prices come down to build a given component, a more capable and most costly one is substituted, keeping the retail price approximately the same but giving people more functionality for the dollar. When the hardware most people owned was more capable than the software in popular use? Software developers were free to develop more powerful software, comfortable in the idea that most potential customers already had systems that could now handle it.
The trend I'm seeing now is different. People are clamoring for "cheaper, thinner, lighter!" and saying, "Not too powerful? Fine... I only need to surf the net, do email and a few other basic things anyway!" This will encourage stagnation in the computing world, IMO. Yes, a lot can be done "in the cloud" on the server side, where presumably, we'll still have the option of buying powerful, high-end systems. But that brings a regression to the days of mainframes and minicomputers with dumb terminals attached! All the real computing power gets centralized with a relative few entities, and "the kid down the block" can't create the next big, amazing new thing anymore. (He only has a tablet computer that can use the "big guys'" offerings.)
That's assuming the trend for cheaper, thinner, lighter devices completely kills desktops and laptops completely, which I seriously doubt it will.
What we're seeing now isn't the death of traditional computers, rather their reemergence as enthusiast and professional machines, as they were in the early 90's. It'll be a smaller market, sure, but as long as there are people out there who need more powerful devices, you'll have someone selling them.
I'm amazed when people talk about limitations of an iOS device. There is nothing that an iPad Air can't do that a medium laptop can. It all depends on the application. There are several very complex apps on the App Store that do amazing things. I hear a lot od people complaining they can't access iOS file system. The thing is: you don't need that! Simple apps will not expose it. Complex apps can expose it by either working with local folders or cloud folders. There are plenty of apps that already do that. Apps like GoodPlayer, for instance, allows you to save videos locally or remotely and you can structure it in foldes. There are several methods of retrieving and and saving files. If an app doesn't allow something, it's not a limitation of the OS, it's the applications itself. iOS has several ways to share and transfer files between applications. The developers of the applications need to know how to do it. The most updated form of sharing files is through the cloud. Mobile devices can do that very well using services like Dropbox, iCloud, Google Drive for simple applications or Amazon storage, etc. for business. I sincerely can't see any business application or process that can't be implemented in an iOS device.