Didn't mean offense. I'm there with you in age though. Perhaps we'll see an iPad pro but until then you have to consider it unlikely given their focus to date with iOS.
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' Said to Feature 12.2-Inch Display, 7-mm Thickness, Stereo Speakers at Top and Bottom
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Didn't mean offense. I'm there with you in age though. Perhaps we'll see an iPad pro but until then you have to consider it unlikely given their focus to date with iOS.
Retina HD @x3 YES
3072 x 2304 Big NO That makes no sense. If iPhone 6/6 Plus is any indicator, we will get more space witch the Pro. For a 12.9" display 4096x3072 would be perfect. 1365x1024 vs 1024x768 points. For 12,2" maybe 1280x960 = 3840x2880.
With iOS 8, it's now more open and less strictly controlled than it's ever been. Apps can now talk to each other freely. You can even add your own keyboard in if you want.
The only downside is you still can't choose default apps. But everything else has moved forward.
For me the iPad Pro is somewhat like the 17 inch MacBook Pro.
My first Mac purchase was the then new 15 inch MacBook Pro with retina display. My second Mac purchase was a used-discontinued 17 inch MacBook Pro because I couldn't buy a new one. I would buy a new one today if it was available but in the meantime Apple will be doing without that sale. I like my 17 inch MacBook Pro so much that I bought 3 of the 17 inch Toshiba laptops because I couldn't get a new MacBook Pro 17 inch.
I would place an order today for a maxed out iPad pro (price unknown) if it was currently available.
I am 70 years old and my eyesight is no longer great? I don't want - I need a large screen. I don't need or want lightweight toys. Weight is not a major consideration since I will be sitting down when ever I am using an iPad or laptop.
I no longer need another 17 inch laptop but if Apple did come out with one I would probably buy it.
I don't have any particular desire for a 17 inch iPad but if they did really have it and it had at least minimal OS capabilities I'd probably buy it. It would probably be hard to handle comfortably in a recliner with my feet up.
I will probably order an iPad Air 2 today but I would be a lot happier and be willing to spend more if it had a 10 inch or better yet a 13 inch display. Unfortunately I don't think 70-year-olds are part of apples marketing plan.
If you think logical it is pretty easy to predict the iPad Pro. It is all there. The Pro will be equivalent to the Plus, same as the Air to 6. The Pro display will get practical cut from the same mother glass as 6 Plus = Retina HD x3
A8X is very likely a quad core chip with one core on the Air 2 disabled. Properly with 2x2GB RAM, maybe 4x1GB to push bandwidth.
It will be a 4k tablet. Min 3840x2880, up to 4096x3072.
That will be a very safe assumption.
There are 2 possible features in the air to differentiate the Pro from the rest. Stylus and proper I/O(aka Thunderbolt over Lightning). If there ever want to evolve the iPad, it is a muss.
just an example of restrictions that drives people away, and is a reason (well one amongst many) why Android is the most popular operating system in the world (and some would argue more innovative).
Holy thickness
I understand the race to thin, but I think Apple is going overboard with this. I've decided to stick to my iPhone 5 (not 5s) and not upgrade to iPhone 6 because of this. I get incremental updates with the 6 and still relatively poor battery life. I would much prefer if iPhone kept the thickness of 5 and and 5s for considerable improvement in battery life in 6.
I understand the race to thin, but I think Apple is going overboard with this. I've decided to stick to my iPhone 5 (not 5s) and not upgrade to iPhone 6 because of this. I get incremental updates with the 6 and still relatively poor battery life. I would much prefer if iPhone kept the thickness of 5 and and 5s for considerable improvement in battery life in 6.
There is an awful lot of pixels to push on an iPad, let alone on a larger 12" model.
At 2560x1920, you'd already have over 50% more pixels than with an Air, and over two times as many pixels as on a 6+.
There is no issue staying at 2x with 264 ppi screens on iPads, why bother going 3x?
There are hints for x3 in the SDK. It is the future for HighEnd iOS devices. And the Pro will be King of Hill. And lets not forget, we will see next year 4k Android Tablets. And the new Retina iMac shows the path. The rumor of the Pro delay to ramp up the 6 Plus display production. And the GPU(PowerVR GX6650) is fast enough for this resolution. So why stay at x2? It makes no sense for Apple.
Yes... I gave answers on that on the thread many times. Keywords are compatibility and accessibility I will guess.
The approach on the 6+ is puzzling, hard to extrapolate anything from it. But yes, sure, a new retina factor to be able to use higher density screens is clearly the best way to go.
Now, I don't think we're close to see an iPad with a 400 ppi screen yet.
And?
3x on the retina iMac? What are you talking about?
I don't think the experience on such a high resolution as you describe would be so good, no. It likely makes more sense to stay at 264 ppi for now.
The Samsung Galaxy note 12" tablet has a 247 PPI screen.
Currently, the smallest 4k monitors sold to consumers are around 24".
You seriously think it would be feasible for Apple (or anyone else for that matter) to mass produce a thin and light 4k 12.2" tablet with a good battery life and reasonable price in the first half of 2015?
and the Pro stands for...?
If I can use it as a wacom table or a hybrid OS machine then it worth named it Pro.
If I can use it as a wacom table or a hybrid OS machine then it worth named it Pro.
Possible, but not very likely.
There is no technical limit to it. We will see.
Competition! It drives innovation. Apple would embarrass itself, if Samsung or Google would bring 4k tablets in the market, shortly after a 2,5k iPad.
Not 3x. To push the technical limit in what is currently possible for HiDPI displays.
Not the same error in reasoning ever-time. Quartz does not use much of the GPU power. The only limit for pushing pixels is the ROP units and the memory interface bandwidth + display interface. There is no rule to dictate the use of a 1:1 resolution for the Metal/OpenGL ES 3D render target. And A8(X) has a 'desktop-class' scaler on-board. You can render at a lower res @60FPS and scale it up to the display.
The arguments remember me at the iPad 2 times. Many also deemed Retina iPad not possible at that time. Now history is simply repeating itself. I am confident, that the iPad Pro will get a Retina HD x3 display. It is the most logical conclusion.
Hold on there chief, don't get your panties in a twist. No reason to get upset because someone can do a better job on an iPad than can be accomplished on a Surface Pro.
How about this tell me why after the 3rd iteration of the Surface Pro (SP), MS still hasn't learned how to offer the same user experience across their Office Suite. If you have the SP, then you should know that there's TWO versions of each Office app a Metro UI version, which is almost always a gimped version of the "real" Office counterpart on the same friggin device!
Also, try this: open One Note, scribble a bunch of stuff out, and then try to export it as a PDF. GOOD LUCK with that. It's 2014 and MS doesn't understand that people may want to create a written note/letter and send/export it as a PDF.
There is no x86 metro version of the office suite. There is an rt version that runs only on surface rt, not surface pro.
There is however, a free version on one note note that runs as a metro app on the surface pro. If you want to export to pdf--use the subscription version.
This is why I doubt a lot of posters here slamming windows and surface have ever used either.
People were already expecting the iPad 2 to have retina, people like me were saying that it was not possible for Apple at the time, and we were right, the iPad 2 came out without retina.
It took an additional year for the iPad 3 to come out with retina, and it was thicker, ran hot and had worse performance than the iPad 2 in most cases. It's still regarded as the "black sheep" of the iPad line up.
lol...at you. apple sold 19 million ipads last year. look it up. MS cites revenues of 1 billion on surface pro--this translates into about a million units.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong (I'm no Windows expert), I don't think the RT/arm version of Office is Metro either. The "desktop" mode existed on the RT surface mainly to run the arm compiled version of Office which was still using the traditional Windows APIs.
I think windows is fine, but there is a problem with MS and updates. It takes some real grunt the first week in windows. I think apple has created the expectation of the pc to be an appliance--and MS has to catch up in terms of ease of set up.
----------
yeesh. at least try to be accurate
My guess: the iPad Pro in 64 and 128 GB versions will ship probably by late February 2015. It will use a new version of iOS (iOS 8.2) that adds side-by-side application display support plus support for the higher resolution screen of the iPad Pro.
(By the way, don't be surprised iOS 8.2 also adds support for loyalty cards in Apple Pay. If that happens, many companies who support CurrentC now will bail in no time flat.)
(By the way, don't be surprised iOS 8.2 also adds support for loyalty cards in Apple Pay. If that happens, many companies who support CurrentC now will bail in no time flat.)
Before this rumor, I expected an iPad "Pro" to be have a similar thickness to the iPad Air 2. If the iPad "Pro" is 3x then that could explain the thicker profile. That being said I think that a tablet that large would benefit more from a thinner and lighter design (with 2x) than a 3x display, at least for the next year or two.
A 3x iPad "Pro" could have around 3.5 times as many pixels* as the iPad Air 2. The article claims "that it is about time when 2015 third quarter that iPad Pro is released" (translated). 2015 Q3 is likely to fall within the timeframe of the A9 series, so a hypothetical A9X with 4x the graphics performance of the A7 would make it comparable to the iPad Air.
* 1300x975 points (4:3) and 1356x904 points (3:2) with 3x scaling would give 401 PPI on a 12.2" display assuming no downscaling. The problem is that neither of those resolutions fit well with the current 1024x768 points, but then again, look at what happened with the recent iPhones.
Right.. And how slow will those tablets run, and how much their batteries will compromised? As slow as the G3, or slower...
Seriously. Resolution is not enough, especially on a professional device. You actually need performance. Also, Tablets are held 50% minimum farther away than a phone, that mean that while for phones 380-450 ppi is probably the sweet spot to be with current CPU, screen and battery tech (with non pentile screens), anything over about 330ppi would be not only be useless for a tablet, it would make the tablet potentially slugish with a battery that doesn't last long.
45.15 square inch (Ipad) * (330 ppi * 330 ppi)
Gives a screen 1920 * 2400
4K (Tv definition) is 3840 x 2160 (you need 430ppi (non pentile) to get that on an Ipad, so what would be the point of that if your slow as a slug?
A pro would need 380ppi with 4K screen and while it makes slightly more sense here... You still need have the GPU to make it perform well which is NOT a given.