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.
iPad Pro Dummy Points Towards Dual Lightning Ports or USB-C Port
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is a Thunderbolt port simply too large for the ever thinner devices Apple is designing for the present and the future?
i'd pay the full price of a rMBP for it if this thing has 1) great pressure sensitivity rivaling that of at least Cintiqs a few generations ago, and 2) OSX.
Looks like you really know who I am :roll eyes:
As a matter of fact, I am a designer and see no use for it.
Apple is pushing both USB C and Thunderbolt 2.0 but you have to remember that they are different products.
USB-C replace USB A,B etc and is a cost effective solution.
Thunderbolt replaced the MDP and added lots of other functionality. Thunderbolt s superior in many ways but was never made to replace USB by rather to add functionality that USB did not have. Since most people do not need this functionality, Apple got rid thunderbolt on the the new Macbook.
I don't believe that's what he means. The new MacBook has only USB, no Thunderbolt, which is a complete 180 from Apple's use of pushing Thunderbolt 2.0 in their OS X products. Additionally, it would have been easier as it carries data, power, audio, video, can be daisy chained without significant signal degradation and faster dual channel speeds. It would have also bolstered more use of Thunderbolt in the market. Thankfully there are now more motherboards for Thunderbolt use in Windows environments now. You could simply use a Thunderbolt to USB adapter or Thunderbolt drives without losing more connections, now you have to constantly swap drives or iDevices on the MacBook unless you have wireless drives, which would be a battery drain.
As for the iPad using USB-C over Lightning, this could be a factor regarding the EU's decision in regulating the excess amount of USB cables to one universal standard for all manufacturers to combat e-waste. Is USB-C the new standard for connecting to devices?
Last edited:
am i mistaken in believing the switch was so that everyone would be on the same page with an industry standard, rather than apple/intel proprietary tech?
This could actually bring more consistency in their product lineup. There are currently three basic tiers for the iPods (shuffle, nano, touch), iPhones (5C, 5S, 6 & 6P), MacBooks (Macbook, Macbook Air, Macbook Pro), Desktop Macs (Mac mini, iMac, Mac Pro), Apple Watch (Sport, Steel, Edition), and now iPads (mini, 9.7", and 12.9").
no one cares what you see, when all you say is 'i see no use for it'
back your **** up or expect to be nothing more than to be received as a troll looking for bites
Well, you are quite welcome
I didn't feel the need to write a lot about it, as I almost can't believe Apple will launch such a product.
- Apple's initial setup was the 10" (or 9.7") iPad only. Several companies came out with other sizes, both larger and smaller. Apple did jump on the smaller size because it proved a success with competitors. Larger sizes were not a succes, mainly because of weight, coming close to eg a MB Air 11" (at the time). Of course, it's quite possible Apple will try to launch a new segment, but it would have to be a lot more than an iPad + 2".
- There is hardly any hand held use for a prolonged time : too big and too heavy
- Its weight will be almost the same as that of the new Macbook without the universal use of a real computer. iOS is (imo) still primarily an OS for content consumption, not creation.
- Who is it for ? I don't see any target audience, except maybe a niche like a drawing artist ?
- OS-wise : to do more than a 9.7", you'd have to change the OS. OSX is in its current state completely inadequate for a touch device. Until now there's no proof of a hybrid OS in development that's the best of both worlds.
- Even if you change the OS : what's the target audience ? What content will you create on it unless you take a keyboard with you ? Typing on a flat surface is still a long shot from using a real keyboard. Or is it just about more content consumption ? So the audience can have a better look
It seems like the evidence of the product is building, but as mentioned, I fail to see the market strategy. Even the iWatch makes more sense
That's a much better analysis, definitely lots of good stuff in there.
Personally, I'm open minded about this larger iPad though not sure whether I'd actually get one. I've got an Air (which I love), but to be honest it didn't come into its real value until I added a keyboard to it (and that, in ways, sort of defeats the purpose of its being a tablet, but having the flexibility is very nice). The new MacBook is sort of like my Air+keyboard (but with OS X obviously and the benefit that OS brings), so that intrigues me, but I love the idea of a larger tablet, mostly I'd imagine for games (for myself - if I were an artist or photographer I'm sure I'd have different uses).
If they can make this "iPad Pro" not too heavy (as you say, bigger brings unwieldy which isn't good in a tablet), then perhaps it could be interesting. I like board games on my Air and can imagine how much more fun some extra real estate might bring - maybe not enough to warrant another device, but perhaps interesting if they do it right. Having a "stationary" tablet in my living room was nice, perhaps one of these pro tablets would be that, light enough to grab and hold on your lap but less portable than something like a laptop or a mini where you could easily throw it in your bag and head out the door with it.
Seems a lot of sizes they'd be offering, not very Apple, unless they eliminated one of the current options in an effort to grab new sales from those who've eschewed the current offerings due to their being too small (though as you say that can't be a very large segment)?
Ideally, (here's my fantasy) I'd love to see a MacBook hybrid where you could attach it to the keyboard and have OS X, then detach it and use it as a larger tablet with iOS. I'm sure Apple would never do this (though the new MacBook does set it up nicely for the possibility), it'd probably eat too much into tablets or their notebooks and they wouldn't be able to sell you two devices (which they prefer), but who knows what their plans are??
Yet Thunderbolt would have been the better choice for the new MacBook - it can be used with Thunderbolt drives and is universal. Simply use a Thunderbolt to USB adapter when needed. USB-C isn't powerful enough, thus the only expensive adapter is USB/Mini-HDMI. That's it. You can't dock the MacBook or add more devices, you now have to swap as you only have one USB connection. Seems absurd and illogical.
Perhaps you need to go to cable school and understand the reason for this. Lightning was developed before usb3 c perhaps that would have been the standard for iPhone
Thunderbolt is ENTIRELY different.
Apple is not pushing usb-c. It's on ONE device. ONE.
TB2 just came out and the roadmap to 3 still stands. At the end of the day both TB and USB are going to end up being very similar (both have the ability to scale to 100GB/s, TB will eventually go optical as it was designed that way at the beginning but will need copper lanes for the 100w of power that usb can provide).
What I'm getting at is the internet may be aflame with claims that one or the other is dead, but both are going to be around for years going forward.
----------
Can you qualify the underlined?
Thunderbolt would be inferior in every way.
Expensive
only supplies 10 watts vs 100 watt
connector is larger and might not fit
connector is not reversible
Thunderbolt cable are very expensive
there will be lots of USB type c devices in the near future, the same is untrue for thunderbolt, once native device are available, adapter will not be required.
Ok, calm down, we're just chatting back and forth, learning as we go. My statements are more questions than anything
As to your comment, I just built a Windows system with a Gigabyte board with Thunderbolt 2.0, there are tons on the market and they're not expensive. Plus you can (and yeah, i did
) use it for a Hackintosh. 10.10 and Windows 8.1 dual boot system, works flawlessly. It doesn't make much sense though, throwing out USB-C into an already crowded market of cables and connections. You still need an adapter to make use of USB-C. The same could have been done with Thunderbolt without losing daisy-chaining, power, versatility and productivity (and pushing adoption growth, there are many Windows systems now that use it and it's growing with 3.0 around the corner)
Last edited:
Well, I'm with you most of the way. I was actually a big fan of the Powerbook Duo, at the time the best notebook/desktop in the world. Never understood why Apple didn't offer a hybrid solution later on (with the MB Air for example).
In this case, if they would go microsoft surface "like", I could see the appeal, but I still think Apple'd have to change the OS to a mixture of OSX and iOS> Perhaps they will. Of course, they'll also run into the MS copycat discussion
Wow, maybe I'm too new here, but what's up with the tension? I thought places like this are for people to come together, chat, learn from one another and not degrade someone for their opinion or lack of knowledge.
I mean this for a few comments here. Why the tension?
So, because I don't see the appeal of a large iPad, I have no vision and consequently am out of work. Gets better by the minute
Ok, calm down, we're just chatting back and forth, learning as we go. My statements are more questions than anything
As to your comment, I just built a Windows system with a Gigabyte board with Thunderbolt 2.0, there are tons on the market and they're not expensive. Plus you can (and yeah, i did
It doesn't make much sense though, throwing out USB-C into an already crowded market of cables and connections. You still need an adapter to make use of USB-C. The same could have been done with Thunderbolt without losing daisy-chaining, power, versatility and productivity.
Congrats on the Hackintosh.
My understanding is the USB port is meant for those rare cases (in the intended market) where you would have to plug in a peripheral.
For a rundown of Thunderbolts roadmap (100w of power, HDMI 2.0, etc): http://www.extremetech.com/computin...-and-100w-power-delivery-for-single-cable-pcs
Thunderbolt is going fiber optic at some point (it was designed that way in the beginning), I don't think the USB standards board/committee/group has decided that far down the road where it is going yet.
Ah, good points. Yes! I completely forgot about the fiber optic versus copper changes due to cost. Wow, 2008! I can't believe it's been so long. Thanks!
Whoa, HDMI 2.0? I just caught that, I glanced and thought USB 2.0 (which makes no sense). Reading that link now. Amazing stuff, finally glad it's going to the lengths it was initially intended. (sucks though as tech develops so quickly, my new Mac Pro seems already long in the tooth but it gets my work done, oh and I liked "Light Peak" better as a name, don't know why)
It's crazy how fast these things have developed. TB3 should allow for 5K displays with no problem.
Why? Type C is replacing over 6 USB cable Currently required plus it is also replacing Displayort and power connectors in some way.
For a few dollars anyone could just replace their cables for most of there device and get a USB C ones. Get USB C to B, USB C to Micro C and so on.
Only devices that have the USB incorporated would need an adapter like USB sticks and thumb drives.
Thunderbolt would cost consumers lots of money