iPad longevity and value

[JPack]

You’re right to say that Apple have previously gone by chipset generation when dropping iOS support - the A5s and A6s have so far all been dropped together, but I really can’t see them cutting off this iPad that early, especially as it’s catering to the basic iPad crowd that might just now be updating from iPad 2s - more likely would be giving the 6s series an extra year of support (they are also still being sold, as is the SE) - so we might see another year or two where no devices are dropped between when the A8s go out and when the A9s go out.

I guess you’re right in saying there’s no guarantees, but I’d like to think Apple would continue offering the generous support they have been known for until now.

A9 will be supported though iOS 13, which is 4 years after launch of the processor. For a low cost iPad, I think that’s decent.

I feel bad for the iPad Pro 9.7” owners however. The A8X is a 2014 product so suppprt is expected to last through iOS 12 only.

 

[Falhófnir]

Here’s the thing - given how cheap the iPad is (relative to how much Apple products typically cost), how long should users reasonably expect Apple to keep supporting them anyways?

This is where I suspect Apple’s decision to sell older hardware at lower prices may come back to bite them in the future. It’s not an issue now; iOS 11 still runs respectably well on 6S specs, and the iPad gets most of the new functionality in iOS 11, missing only the Apple Pencil-specific features (which I don’t think anyone is complaining). But it also means that Apple is obligated to support them for longer down the line.

Cut support too soon and people accuse Apple of forced obsolescence. iOS 12+ may just be the equivalent of maintenance patches for the iPad. You get bug and security fixes but no new features, because the hardware can’t support it.

I guess it’s better than nothing?

I wouldn’t say a lower cost justifies a truncated user experience, the trade off is already made in features like pencil support better cameras, the most power to handle the most demanding games and apps etc. Apple has chosen to offer this iPad at this price point to try to hang on to those customers who want a basic tablet experience, surely it’s still only right they continue to receive the os updates to maintain compatibility with the software catalogue as long as for any other iPad product? That’s a pretty basic promise of the iPad experience. Missing out on features that require specific newer hardware is fair enough, totally chopping off security support (and therefore ultimately app compatibility) earlier than you’d expect would be a damaging move on Apple’s part.
[doublepost=1510502122][/doublepost]

A9 will be supported though iOS 13, which is 4 years after launch of the processor. For a low cost iPad, I think that’s decent.

I feel bad for the iPad Pro 9.7” owners however. The A8X is a 2014 product so suppprt is expected to last through iOS 12 only.

No I’d say 4 years/ 4 iOS updates from launch is fair to expect from any Apple product, it’s a basic part of the Apple user experience. Otherwise people could buy one now - less than a year after launch - and only get 2.5 years of fully supported lifespan and maybe another couple of years of limgering/ declining compatibility (in which time missing security updates would make it risky for online banking/ purchases). Remember it was Apple who made the decision to put the A9 in, they could have used the A10.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

Depends 100% on you. You're use case, how frequently you plan to use it, your tolerance for slow/lag, and your desire to get the flashy new hotness.

My mom has my old iPad 2 (2011) and my gf has my old iPad 3 (2012) and that is plenty for them. Of course they don't use it that much and mostly just for netflix/email/light web browsing. But still they are 5-6 years old. And I would argue that processing power in iPads have improved so much since then that longevity is only increasing. Current iPads will likely have about the same use in 10 years as iPad 2/3 do now

So my point again is that upgrade cycle is completely dependent on you. But regardless if you want the most bang for your buck, I'd probably recommend getting the inexpensive iPad*. It is literally half the cost of the Pro, and it surely will not last for twice as long. Maybe 50% longer. However, even IF you stretched it out to last twice as long as the non pro (say 8 years vs 4 years), then surely buying an updated iPad 4 years from now would give you a much better iPad experience than the current pro will in 4 years.

*This is assuming you buy new at full price. If you manage to get a refurb or lightly used iPad Pro (1st or 2nd gen) then it might be a better deal. Additionally this is mostly considering processing power for longevity. If you really want/need pencil/smart keyboard/etc then obviously you gotta go pro.

 

[rowspaxe]

...I wonder what the practical longevity of these are? Is it worth spending that kind of money if it’ll lose much of its value in a few years?

Figure 4 years--5 as a push. I don't understand why people buy so much memory? Games?

 

[JPack]

No I’d say 4 years/ 4 iOS updates from launch is fair to expect from any Apple product, it’s a basic part of the Apple user experience. Otherwise people could buy one now - less than a year after launch - and only get 2.5 years of fully supported lifespan and maybe another couple of years of limgering/ declining compatibility (in which time missing security updates would make it risky for online banking/ purchases). Remember it was Apple who made the decision to put the A9 in, they could have used the A10.

At the same, consumers are fully aware of what processor is in the product. The A9 spec is listed as a top line item.

Apple prominently lists the processor for each product. This is not hidden information like RAM. So it's fair for Apple to use the processor as the cut-off for iOS updates.

Apple puts older processors in value priced products - this includes iPhone 5c and iPad mini. As a result, support was limited to 3 years.

 

[senseless]

I was debating whether to replace my 4 year old Air 1 with a Pro 10.5", but don't do anything more than YouTube, newspaper reading and web browsing on it. 5 years is probably going to the most I get out of it before it becomes a slug.

 

[gobikerider]

A9 will be supported though iOS 13, which is 4 years after launch of the processor. For a low cost iPad, I think that’s decent.

I feel bad for the iPad Pro 9.7” owners however. The A8X is a 2014 product so suppprt is expected to last through iOS 12 only.

The A8X iPad Air 2 will last easily beyond iOS 12, although I wouldn’t be surprised if iOS 12 was the last update that ran exceptionally well on its hardware. For the people without issues Ive heard the Air 2 is just heavenly on iOS 11. It showing very little if any sign of aging

 

[Richard8655]

A9 will be supported though iOS 13, which is 4 years after launch of the processor. For a low cost iPad, I think that’s decent.

I feel bad for the iPad Pro 9.7” owners however. The A8X is a 2014 product so suppprt is expected to last through iOS 12 only.

Isn’t iPad Pro 9.7 with an A9 chip?

 

[satchmo]

The bigger question might be how do iPad's compare with say Apple's laptops for longevity.

Given they're almost on par in terms of cost, would a MacBook or entry MBP, be the 'better buy'?

My 2013 iPad Air is going on 4 years...and it's really showing it's age.
Meanwhile my 7 year old 2010 MBP feels faster when browsing pages and doing any intensive work.

Although, comparing a 2017 MPB with a 2017 iPad Pro may be a much closer race.

 

[Richard8655]

The longevity of iPads remain poor because iOS updates slow devices down and downgrading is still not a possibility. Sometimes updates to the latest iOS are even forced if you want to run the latest versions of some apps.

To keep it short, the iPad is device with planned obsolescence, and will depreciate and get slower over time.

This is an interesting point. I’ve sometimes wondered why Apple couldn’t release IOS upgrades with the option to turn off processor-intensive new features in order to allow older iPads to still run reasonably well. Well, we know the answer to that question.

 

[MarkB786]

As we’re seeing and buying pretty expensive iPads these days approaching $1k or more, I wonder what the practical longevity of these are? Is it worth spending that kind of money if it’ll lose much of its value in a few years? Or stick with base and less expensive models and just replace more frequently?

For example, before starting to get sluggish and difficult to use, I’m thinking a regular 2017 iPad (A9 chip) maybe 4-5 years. iPad Pro (A10x chip) 5-6 years? Maybe that’s too optimistic. Any thoughts?

In my experience about two years before it starts lagging and/or one of the buttons stops working.
[doublepost=1510625973][/doublepost]

The bigger question might be how do iPad's compare with say Apple's laptops for longevity. Apple products generally seem to be designed for a limited life span to keep the upgrade channel filled.

Given they're almost on par in terms of cost, would a MacBook or entry MBP, be the 'better buy'?

My 2013 iPad Air is going on 4 years...and it's really showing it's age.
Meanwhile my 7 year old 2010 MBP feels faster when browsing pages and doing any intensive work.

Although, comparing a 2017 MPB with a 2017 iPad Pro may be a much closer race.

Honestly, I would give MacBook Pros also about two years, maybe three. I am a heavy user and my MBPs seem to have logic boards that go bad, batteries that won't charge, or dead USB ports within 24 to 26 months.

 

[Mad Mac Maniac]

In my experience about two years before it starts lagging and/or one of the buttons stops working.
[doublepost=1510625973][/doublepost]

Honestly, I would give MacBook Pros also about two years, maybe three. I am a heavy user and my MBPs seem to have logic boards that go bad, batteries that won't charge, or dead USB ports within 24 to 26 months.

This is exactly why the OP is asking an impossible question. Everyone is different. You say iPads are 2 years and MBP are 2-3 years? Well my gf and mom have 5-6 year old iPads and completely happy. My gf has my old 10 year old white MacBook and is happy. True they are very very light users, but that just shows that everyone is different. I have a 4 year old MBA and I'm literally just as happy with it as the day I bought it. I could imagine using this thing as my only non-iOS device for another 6 years or so.

 

[Richard8655]

This is exactly why the OP is asking an impossible question. Everyone is different. You say iPads are 2 years and MBP are 2-3 years? Well my gf and mom have 5-6 year old iPads and completely happy. My gf has my old 10 year old white MacBook and is happy. True they are very very light users, but that just shows that everyone is different. I have a 4 year old MBA and I'm literally just as happy with it as the day I bought it. I could imagine using this thing as my only non-iOS device for another 6 years or so.

I suppose if all you do is play simple games and keep notes and telephone contacts, any device could last forever. I think this question was aimed at the typical user who uses internet, email, latest applications, video, music, YouTube, maps, etc. I can’t see how a 6+ year old iPad (such as iPad 1) could function even reasonably well for those typical uses.

 

[akash.nu]

I suppose if all you do is play simple games and keep notes and telephone contacts, any device could last forever. I think this question was aimed at the typical user who uses internet, email, latest applications, video, music, YouTube, maps, etc. I can’t see how a 6+ year old iPad (such as iPad 1) could function even reasonably well for those typical uses.

Because iPad Air couldn’t be upgraded past iOS 9 I think.

 

[Leo90]

I got a 10.5 iPad Pro and I am expecting to get 4 years usage out of this one. Great machine and super snappy

 

[loby]

Still using the much maligned iPad 3. Come March, will have had it for 6yrs.

For my media consumption, web browsing, email, reading, and occassional minor word processing, still works well enough for on the couch or on a plane. That said, will be replacing with the next refresh.

The "dud" iPad 3 lasted me for 5 years and the battery did not give at all...? Yes, it slowed down after 2 years due to the OS and the poor RAM (I think it only 512K, but someone said 1GB). The screen was nice (first Retina) and was a little heavy, but a solid feel and balanced when holding it if you are laying on the couch watching a video.

I gave it to my father-in-law who loves it (does just mail, web browsing and youtube...). I bought the iPad 2017 and expect it to last hopefully another 5 years.

 

[ggibson913]

As we’re seeing and buying pretty expensive iPads these days approaching $1k or more, I wonder what the practical longevity of these are? Is it worth spending that kind of money if it’ll lose much of its value in a few years? Or stick with base and less expensive models and just replace more frequently?

For example, before starting to get sluggish and difficult to use, I’m thinking a regular 2017 iPad (A9 chip) maybe 4-5 years. iPad Pro (A10x chip) 5-6 years? Maybe that’s too optimistic. Any thoughts?

I am still using an iPad Air 2, the other half is still using the original iPad Air, both devices are running well and I don't notice any sluggishness (maybe slight in the original air, but not enough to replace it). As an aside we use our iPads for media consumption, light gaming, home automation tasks, reading, surfing the web and e-mail for the most part. Nothing too taxing. Unless you want to draw, the regular iPad should be more than enough to last you for awhile whereas the Pro would probably last you 4 to 5 years.

 

[gobikerider]

Because iPad Air couldn’t be upgraded past iOS 9 I think.

iPad Air is still supported in iOS 11...

 

[Richard8655]

I read Apple’s iPad battery longevity expectation is holding 80% charge after 1000 charges. Then no guarantees.

My iPad 3’s battery also was fine up to my trade-in last week. The problem was it became uselessly slow and unresponsive with subsequent IOS upgrades (sooner than expected). I also saw on another forum some people stopped upgrading their older iPad’s IOS and they’re reporting everything’s still zippy as originally.

 

[pika2000]

The 2017 iPad will surely last for a while. It has the minimum requirement to run ARKit and HEVC decoding. The future bottleneck will be RAM when 4GB becoming the standard, but that would be years later.

If you're into video/photo editing, however, I would go with at least the A10 devices. I can see HEVC and HEIF becoming the preferred format by Apple. But again, this will be years and by then you might be looking for an upgrade again anyway.

The 2017 iPad is a good value for a tablet, even if it lasted only 3 to 4 years.

Having said all of that, the biggest problem with iOS is that Apple only updates the core stock apps (like Safari) along with iOS updates. Once a device is dropped from the latest iOS, it won't get any updates for those core apps. This is critical when the internet browser is usually the main point of attack of many security vulnerabilities. I know that Apple like to boast a new version of Safari on every new major iOS update, but imo it's time to decouple Safari so it can be updated with security patches independently from the OS updates. As bad as Android update is, at least older devices can get the latest Chrome browser from the Play Store.

 

[Mainsail]

When I purchased the 2017 iPad this summer, I figured on 3 years of good solid use. At purchase price of $300, that’s reasonable annual expense for something I use all of the time.

I could have purchased the Pro, but I didn’t have much use for the pencil, so the cost premium didn’t really make sense for me. Also, I suspect Pro owners will replace on roughly the same cycle as the standard iPad.....maybe even more often. As a consumer group, Pro buyers are more likely to be attracted to technology improvements and be early adopters of the latest device. So, they will tend to replace their iPads more often.....as a general rule. YMMV.

 

[akash.nu]

Having said all of that, the biggest problem with iOS is that Apple only updates the core stock apps (like Safari) along with iOS updates. Once a device is dropped from the latest iOS, it won't get any updates for those core apps. This is critical when the internet browser is usually the main point of attack of many security vulnerabilities. I know that Apple like to boast a new version of Safari on every new major iOS update, but imo it's time to decouple Safari so it can be updated with security patches independently from the OS updates. As bad as Android update is, at least older devices can get the latest Chrome browser from the Play Store.

That’s simply because chrome and android aren’t the same. Google developed chrome on their own to get more people to use their online services which made them more money whereas Android was just acquired as is. It’s better to just keep the 2 development lines separately than trying to integrate chrome within Android.

 

[pika2000]

That’s simply because chrome and android aren’t the same. Google developed chrome on their own to get more people to use their online services which made them more money whereas Android was just acquired as is. It’s better to just keep the 2 development lines separately than trying to integrate chrome within Android.

I can argue that Safari and iOS are not in the same development either. Safari has existed way longer than iOS.

In the past, Android did have many of its core apps "bundled" with the OS and not available separately, thus can only be updated along with the OS. But then Google decoupled many of them so they can be updated separately through the Play store, mitigating the update issue on Android OEMs. From Chrome to even the SMS app. (note that I'm talking about the Google apps, not core AOSP apps).

It would be nice if Apple can do the same, thus offering safer/patched Safari browser on their older devices.

 

[akash.nu]

I can argue that Safari and iOS are not in the same development either. Safari has existed way longer than iOS.

In the past, Android did have many of its core apps "bundled" with the OS and not available separately, thus can only be updated along with the OS. But then Google decoupled many of them so they can be updated separately through the Play store, mitigating the update issue on Android OEMs. From Chrome to even the SMS app. (note that I'm talking about the Google apps, not core AOSP apps).

It would be nice if Apple can do the same, thus offering safer/patched Safari browser on their older devices.

Not true. Safari has always been a part of OS X and iOS was built from the same core. Therefore safari has been part of the OS from the inception.

 

[sracer]

Not true. Safari has always been a part of OS X and iOS was built from the same core. Therefore safari has been part of the OS from the inception.

In a very literal and narrow perspective you are correct. In a technical and practical sense, not even close.