iPad Pro Apple will never release an iPad Air 3

[masotime]

Totally not denigrating. Let's rephrase.

"[Macbook Pro] nearly double the CPU performance of [Macbook Air]"

"[Macbook Pro] delivers up to 1.8 times the CPU performance and double the graphics performance of [Macbook Air]"

"The [15"‑inch] screen offers [whatever] percent more display area than that of [MacBook Air]."

"Since [Macbook Pro] has 2.5 million more pixels than [Macbook Air]..."

"Despite having 78 percent more display area than [Macbook Air], [Macbook Pro] feels reassuringly solid in the hand."

"With 1.8 times the CPU performance of [Macbook Air], the [Broadwell / Skylake / whatever] chip delivers incredible speed and responsiveness."

etc. etc. and people will still buy the MacBook Air because it is thinner, lighter and they don't need so much power.

Seriously, I think you are reading way too much into it.

Go back and read my original post in this thread. You don't call those quotes denigrating? It's one thing to characterize a product as being the next great step in technology within a product family. It's quite another to say how poor the last version of a product was in favor of the new version, which is exactly what Apple does on their website. They could have done this a lot better and had a much more effective positioning of the products if they hadn't done that. To me, it looks like they're saying that the Air line is gone, and who cares how poor it was anyway since we now have the Pro to replace it. What's poor is their marketing.

 

[masotime]

I mean think about it. Why in the world would I buy a Macbook Pro if it has a comparable power and display as a Macbook Air (or the new 12" Macbook for that matter)? Same argument as iPad Pro and iPad Air.

Same argument with Microsoft Surface. Why do people buy the Surface 3 over the Surface Pro 3? It's cheaper and they don't need the power.

Surface Pro 3 is clearly more powerful, yet it makes no difference. Different strokes for different folks... if Apple didn't emphasize the power of the iPad Pro over the iPad Air, who would buy it???

 

[daniel1948]

Apple is not denigrating the iPad Air 2. It's comparing the Pro to the best tablet presently available, to show how great the Pro is. The Pro is so much more expensive that the two will appeal to different folks. That's what you do when you introduce a new, more advanced technology: You compare it to the best previous thing

 

[Jsameds]

2012:
iPad 4 with A6X

2013:
Air 1 with A7

2014:
Air 2 with A8X

2015:
iPad Pro With A9X

2016:
Air 3 with A9X
iPad Pro 2 with A10X

Basically the regular iPad line has been knocked back a year to make the iPad Pro look better. Not impressed as I have zero interest in the Pro

 

[pika2000]

How is Apple "denigrating" it? Just because the iPad Pro is more powerful than the iPad Air doesn't mean the iPad Air sucks. Does the MacBook Air suck because the MacBook Pro is more powerful than the Air? They are meant for different use cases.

When intel refreshed its CPU lineup, all of the Macs usually get refreshed also. Sure, the Macbook Pro will get a faster chip than the Macbook Air, but they are all usually in the same generation of CPUs.

The Ax SoCs are different story. Right now, the iPad Air 2 is a generation behind, instead of being updated to an A9 SoC derivatives.

 

[Dranix]

Well in my opinion many here are deluding themselves- A iPad Air 3 won't get the special screen and Pencil support. If Apple keeps it it will probably have a non x cpu a little higher in speed then the one in the iPhone.

 

[daniel1948]

Well in my opinion many here are deluding themselves- A iPad Air 3 won't get the special screen and Pencil support. If Apple keeps it it will probably have a non x cpu a little higher in speed then the one in the iPhone.

I don't see how this means people are deluding themselves. Of course the Air 3 won't have the same features as the Pro. The Air is not supposed to be the Pro. The Pro has a better chip and fancy features, and a price tag to match. The Air will always be less expensive than the Pro, and that means it won't have the same features or a comparable chip.

 

[Dranix]

I don't see how this means people are deluding themselves. Of course the Air 3 won't have the same features as the Pro. The Air is not supposed to be the Pro. The Pro has a better chip and fancy features, and a price tag to match. The Air will always be less expensive than the Pro, and that means it won't have the same features or a comparable chip.

Well many think and posted that they expect the Air 3 to have Pencil and A9x - I don't see that coming: Would be insane or would bring the Air price wise near the pro.

 

[masotime]

Technical details aside, the Pro is being marketed at a different target market. It has to have something to differentiate it. Regardless of the actual physical components, no one expects a Pro product to be less performant than an Air product.

There's a reason why the iPhone Plus is called a Plus and not a Pro - it has essentially the same performance as the non-Plus, minus the larger display and OIS. If Apple were to launch an iPhone "Pro", I'd expect it to use the same "denigration" in contrast with the iPhone.

Remember, Apple is marketing the device to a general audience, who doesn't really care so much about exactly what kind of microprocessor is inside, only the performance metrics.

When intel refreshed its CPU lineup, all of the Macs usually get refreshed also. Sure, the Macbook Pro will get a faster chip than the Macbook Air, but they are all usually in the same generation of CPUs.

The Ax SoCs are different story. Right now, the iPad Air 2 is a generation behind, instead of being updated to an A9 SoC derivatives.

 

[masotime]

This is Macrumors.... which probably makes up less then 0.1% of Apple's entire market.... even if you took all the people on the internet forums of Apple enthusiasts, I doubt it would exceed 5%.

Well many think and posted that they expect the Air 3 to have Pencil and A9x - I don't see that coming: Would be insane or would bring the Air price wise near the pro.

 

[pika2000]

Technical details aside, the Pro is being marketed at a different target market. It has to have something to differentiate it. Regardless of the actual physical components, no one expects a Pro product to be less performant than an Air product.

Remember, Apple is marketing the device to a general audience, who doesn't really care so much about exactly what kind of microprocessor is inside, only the performance metrics.

Apple also positioned the Macbook Pro and Macbook Air at different target markets, yet when the 13" Macbook Pro got Broadwell, the Macbook Air also got Broadwell, not left behind with Haswell/Ivy Bridge. That's the difference. Sure, the Macbook Air's CPU is slower, but it is still at the same generation as the faster broadwell on the Macbook Pro 13".

Meanwhile, there's a clear generation gap now between the iPad Pro and the iPad Air 2. Whether that's translate to significant performance gap or not is a different story, but it's just that some people are not comfortable knowing that they are buying something that is last gen.

Apple managed to create an A9X and A9, same generation but clear distinction for the specific target market. Same thing with A8X and A8. So I'm wondering why they couldn't do something in between for the iPad Air.

 

[masotime]

Well I'm not really arguing this. I just think that using the word "denigrating" to describe the comparisons is a little too much, given the intent of designating the iPad Pro as a "Pro" product.

Frankly given what happened to the iPad Mini 3 versus the iPad Air 2, I'm actually not surprised at all that Apple hasn't officially update the iPad Air. In fact, I'd prefer they don't update it rather than give us an iPad Air 3 with just e.g. Force Touch with the same processor and display, i.e. no other improvements.

Apple managed to create an A9X and A9, same generation but clear distinction for the specific target market. Same thing with A8X and A8. So I'm wondering why they couldn't do something in between for the iPad Air.

 

[kiranmk2]

If Apple are moving to a 2-year cycle on the iPad line I can't see them using old chips for the 9.7" model. My feeling is that the Air 3 (or whatever it's called) will have an A9X chip if if comes in H1 2016 and an A10X chip if it comes in H2 2016. Apple will likely differentiate between 9.7" and the pro by non-chip generation features. I would think that the Pro will always have more RAM than the 9.7" and may well have a quad core CPU/higher core GPU - possibly via binning of chips to increase yields (in the same way the ATV3 used A5 chips that may have had a faulty second core). Software differentiation is also likely and I think keyboard cover/pencil support will remain Pro-only for at least a few generations.

iPad mini is a different story - I think they will use whatever chips they have available in bulk - there must be a boatload of A8s knocking around (iPhone 6/6+, iPad mini 4, AppleTV 4) so there could definitely by sweetspots to pick up a Mini.

 

[daniel1948]

Well many think and posted that they expect the Air 3 to have Pencil and A9x - I don't see that coming: Would be insane or would bring the Air price wise near the pro.

Okay. I must have missed seeing those posts. I agree with you that the Air 3 will not have the pencil, and won't have the same chip as the Pro unless they wait another year to bring it out. The Air could maybe have the same chip as a year-old Pro, though I wouldn't speculate on that. I don't know how much that would add to the cost of manufacture.

 

[Silver Idaten]

Remember when people said the Mini 3 was the last Mini, and then they made the Mini 4?

 

[The Game 161]

They won't get rid of either mini or air.

Different types like both. I think if anything the pro is the line which is for a special type of customer

 

[Sparky2012]

I don't want to buy the iPad Pro considering the price but I also don't want to buy an iPad Air 2/3 if it is one generation behind on its chip. Quite ridiculous because if the Pro hadn't came about, everyone knows the Air line would get the A9X without a doubt. I personally don't see there being an issue if all Apple does is upgrade the chip to the same as the Pro for the Air 3. By only upgrading the chip, there is still a fairly large enough differentiation between the Pro and Air lines to not cause customers to go for the Air instead of the Pro. I suppose we will see what happens.

 

[sjleworthy]

I don't want to buy the iPad Pro considering the price but I also don't want to buy an iPad Air 2/3 if it is one generation behind on its chip. Quite ridiculous because if the Pro hadn't came about, everyone knows the Air line would get the A9X without a doubt. I personally don't see there being an issue if all Apple does is upgrade the chip to the same as the Pro for the Air 3. By only upgrading the chip, there is still a fairly large enough differentiation between the Pro and Air lines to not cause customers to go for the Air instead of the Pro. I suppose we will see what happens.

what does it matter? what difference does it make if the chip inside the system is more than superb for the device in question? so it isnt Pro standards, so what? the Pro chip is super powerful for the Pro. maybe too powerful for the regular ipad? does the regular ipad really need the Pro chip? unless you're a chip engineer (or whatever they're called) who are in the know better than you, calling it ridiculous is ridiculous.

Apple's equipment have always been about user experience and performance, not necessarily the specifics under the hood! is the Air2 (Apple's next best ipad) really struggling? i think not.

some people really cant see the wood from the trees and dot too many i's and cross too many t's. ok, the chips are different, well heck, are Apple ripping us off? certainly not. too spoiled is what we are.

 

[daniel1948]

what does it matter? what difference does it make if the chip inside the system is more than superb for the device in question? so it isnt Pro standards, so what? the Pro chip is super powerful for the Pro. maybe too powerful for the regular ipad? does the regular ipad really need the Pro chip? unless you're a chip engineer (or whatever they're called) who are in the know better than you, calling it ridiculous is ridiculous.

Apple's equipment have always been about user experience and performance, not necessarily the specifics under the hood! is the Air2 (Apple's next best ipad) really struggling? i think not.

some people really cant see the wood from the trees and dot too many i's and cross too many t's. ok, the chips are different, well heck, are Apple ripping us off? certainly not. too spoiled is what we are.

I agree with this. There may be people whose applications/uses really need a more powerful chip. But to want the most powerful chip there is, just to know you have it, is pointless, and a waste of money. The most advanced device will always have the latest, most expensive technology, and will cost the most. Look at iMacs: the more expensive ones have better chips. Apple has to balance performance against cost and anticipate what people are willing to pay.

Sparky: The "issue" with issuing an iPad Air with the more advanced chip is that the tablet would cost more and fewer people would buy it. In a year the price of that chip will come down and they'll be able to put it in the next Air. Meanwhile, there'll be an even better chip that will go into the Pro 2. The Pro does a lot more stuff than the Air. (Pencil, split screen) so it needs more computing power than the Air does.

 

[urkel]

2016:
Air 3 with A9X
iPad Pro 2 with A10X

Basically the regular iPad line has been knocked back a year to make the iPad Pro look better. Not impressed as I have zero interest in the Pro

Doesn't the future prediction of chips rely entirely on the success of the iPad Pro.

If the iPad Pro isn't a smash hit then will Apple really sacrifice Air sales for Pro profit? To be honest, I have no idea because every product release makes it clearer that Tim Cooks Apple is more about profit than experience.

IMac 5400rpm drives
24GB Fusion drives
16GB iPhones
32GB iPad "Pro"
$1300 MacBook 12"
Fashion Focus (Fashioni$ta$ Nonsense)
Accessory prices are insane
Non-4K AppleTV (buy again next year)

It really is a different company because With Jobs then crippled products existed because of technological limitations. With Cook they exist because of profit.

 

[FallenLegend]

Doesn't the future prediction of chips rely entirely on the success of the iPad Pro.

If the iPad Pro isn't a smash hit then will Apple really sacrifice Air sales for Pro profit? To be honest, I have no idea because every product release makes it clearer that Tim Cooks Apple is more about profit than experience.

IMac 5400rpm drives
24GB Fusion drives
16GB iPhones
32GB iPad "Pro"
$1300 MacBook 12"
Fashion Focus (Fashioni$ta$ Nonsense)
Accessory prices are insane
Non-4K AppleTV (buy again next year)

It really is a different company because With Jobs then crippled products existed because of technological limitations. With Cook they exist because of profit.

During Jobs era the iphone wasn't allowed to record video. In fact there was a time there were paid apps for recording video, but not offical apple ones, so it was crippled on purpose.

 

[lockerc18]

Totally not denigrating. Let's rephrase.

"[Macbook Pro] nearly double the CPU performance of [Macbook Air]"

"[Macbook Pro] delivers up to 1.8 times the CPU performance and double the graphics performance of [Macbook Air]"

"The [15"‑inch] screen offers [whatever] percent more display area than that of [MacBook Air]."

"Since [Macbook Pro] has 2.5 million more pixels than [Macbook Air]..."

"Despite having 78 percent more display area than [Macbook Air], [Macbook Pro] feels reassuringly solid in the hand."

"With 1.8 times the CPU performance of [Macbook Air], the [Broadwell / Skylake / whatever] chip delivers incredible speed and responsiveness."

etc. etc. and people will still buy the MacBook Air because it is thinner, lighter and they don't need so much power.

Seriously, I think you are reading way too much into it.

The only difference between the Air 2 and the Pro which will make a difference to customers in general is screen size. All this talk about incremental performance increases in processor speeds and the like don't really mean a thing, except to geeks.

I could certainly be wrong about Apple never selling an Air 3, and I hope I am. But there are ways to portray the selling points of the Pro without using negative comparisons to their existing flagship tablet. Selling against your own product is not only denigrating to the existing product, it's stupid. Position them so both can be sold optimally.

Your comparisons to the Mac line really serve to point out how confused that product line is. There are way too many overlaps between systems. There needs to be much more clarity to the positioning there. These are truly terrific systems, but trying to understand the differences between them is not trivial. Apple needs to make it easy to buy their products, not hard.

 

[urkel]

During Jobs era the iphone wasn't allowed to record video. In fact there was a time there were paid apps for recording video, but not offical apple ones, so it was crippled on purpose.

I remember using 3rd party apps to record video. It wasn't pretty. So, while I understand your point and agree that it was an intentional omission, it can also be argued that Jobs didn't allow video recording because of how deeply he cared about the user experience.

 

[joeblow7777]

This is Macrumors.... which probably makes up less then 0.1% of Apple's entire market.... even if you took all the people on the internet forums of Apple enthusiasts, I doubt it would exceed 5%.

Not even close. Think of the tens of millions of products that Apple sells. Even if there's 1000 active members of macrumors it wouldn't be close to 0.1%.

 

[dgreene196]

Doesn't the future prediction of chips rely entirely on the success of the iPad Pro.

If the iPad Pro isn't a smash hit then will Apple really sacrifice Air sales for Pro profit? To be honest, I have no idea because every product release makes it clearer that Tim Cooks Apple is more about profit than experience.

IMac 5400rpm drives
24GB Fusion drives
16GB iPhones
32GB iPad "Pro"
$1300 MacBook 12"
Fashion Focus (Fashioni$ta$ Nonsense)
Accessory prices are insane
Non-4K AppleTV (buy again next year)

It really is a different company because With Jobs then crippled products existed because of technological limitations. With Cook they exist because of profit.

Hmmm.

I agree with some of your points, but not entirely. It may be possible that the slow hard dives (unacceptably slow) or small SSD in the smaller Fusion Drive may be related to hitting a certain price point to allow the P3 display. If getting the most out of the screen is the most important part of the user experience (and it's certainly one of the most important parts), then that was a conscious end-user experience decision.

As far as the smaller capacity iOS devices, I haven't checked recently, but I don't think the gross profit margins on low-end iOS devices have changed dramatically over time. Apple is still ensuring their significant profits, but they haven't increased the amount they gouge their customers, have they?

I don't think you can put accessory prices on Tim Cook. Apple accessories have always been outrageously priced. Maybe, maybe the old printer and digital camera lines were fairly priced in their markets, but that's about it.

As for 4K AppleTV, I understand that decision. Especially with the addition of apps and games, the AppleTV allows for the socialization of the iOS platform. That means you're sitting several feet away from the TV with friends and family, rather than inches working on a computer screen working/playing alone. At that distance, you're much less likely to distinguish the difference between 1080p and 4K. That's a general observation, of course, and YMMV. With that in mind, especially with the unfortunate knowledge that some ISPs are fans of data capping/throttling, holding off on 4K isn't the worst thing in the world. If I remember correctly, the A8 chip in the new AppleTV has been shown capable of playing back 4K, so it's possible a future update could make that a possibility.

I agree that the Retina Macbook is more a proof of concept prototype than an ideal piece of technology. I'll be curious to see comparisons between it and the iPad Pro when it's available.