'iPad Pro' Said to Feature 12.2-Inch Display, 7-mm Thickness, Stereo Speakers at Top and Bottom

[chleuasme]

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.

lol again. Apple sold over 12m iPads last quater alone, 68m over the last four quarters.
MS reported $908m in revenu for the Surface last quarter with no infos on units sold, and positive gross margins for the first time. It's too early to talk about Surface Pro sales anyway, supply is said to be constrained, not all models are available; next quarter will be interesting to watch.

 

[chleuasme]

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.

What's the point to have a high density screen if you plan to run scaled up 1x apps at 3x. That's not how it works.

 

[teslo]

is there room for stylus improvements to equal wacom style sensitivity? i've always thought this would be a good avenue to explore (as long as the replacement pens aren't too expensive).

then a mere iPad 12" Plus running iOS would suffice for most consumers (and piss me and a lot of professionals off) but be a decent compromise (and very 'apple')

if apple had real surprises in store, they'd offer apps that compete with adobe software, 'iMovie Pro', Logic support, etc.. we're talking specs well beyond iPad air 2, but y'know.. i want them to support OS X but maybe they have much bigger plans for iOS apps/developer partnerships than we imagine presently

 

[smoledman]

Unless Apple is planning a real unification of iOS/OS X like Microsoft did with Windows 8, this is going to fail hard. Surface Pro 3 is already a creative professional's dream device(esp with the Surface Pen). I fail to see the market for an iPad Plus/Pro. Maybe a few 1000 people who want a full magazine experience.

 

[trip1ex]

obviously there is some tie in (or mix up) here between ipad and mba.

 

[Big Dawg 23]

Just seems..... odd. I don't know a ton of people begging for a 13" tablet. It will be fairly heavy, and I just can't imagine business or creatives picking this thing up unless it adds additional functionality on the OS level (power user features).

I have a iPad Air and also Note Pro 12.2. I really like the additional screen space for spreadsheets and document viewing. Not to mention movie watching, however, iOS is a lot smoother and better movie play.

I do want to see additionally features to iOS or loading it with Yosemite.

 

[Casiotone]

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.

So the iPad pro would have the performance of a two year old product to satisfy a minority of people clamoring for a 4K screen?

Most people are ok with 264 PPI on the current iPads. On a 12.2" iPad, this "low" density would be even less noticeable. Retina Macbooks have an even lower PPI and I don't see anyone complaining about it. Just think about all the advantages of keeping the same density (battery life, extra speed, lower price). At best I can see them increase the PPI toward 326 PPI like other iOS devices, but there would be no need for a 3x scaling factor in this case.

Apple felt it was important to reach the magical number of 1080p on the iPhone 6 plus for marketing reasons. I don't think this will apply to iPads and 4K anytime soon.

 

[Renzatic]

yeesh. at least try to be accurate

true

Okay. You say I'm wrong, then turn around and all but agree with me not even two posts later.

I ARE CONFUSED!

 

[alex2792]

Not interested unless it runs a real OS. What's the point of having a 12in screen if you can't do any real multitasking? Oh,and stylus support is also a must.

 

[panther quest]

It better have wacom like pressure sensitivity or it really won't be that pro will it.

 

[Rad99004]

A mouse and trackpad mean a cursor (or any kind of drawing tool). But moving a cursor if no mouse or trackpad is connected on a touch screen is a bit of a pain (as we know from text entry on iOS and other touch-based OS).

How is that solved on the Surface? Is the cursor only there if you are in the traditional Windows environment and it disappears in the tile (Metro) view? Or does it disappear when you unplug the mouse or trackpad? Or does it only show up in text fields when using the Metro environment?

Just remoted in to work using my IPad and Microsoft RDP and the program adds a virtual mouse curser works rather well. Would be nice to have control of it using a mouse or trackpad. So it is possible at the program level. Now to add it to the rest of the OS.

 

[n-evo]

i bet they solder the RAM

I bet it won't come with an Ethernet port.

 

[Rizzm]

Just a random guess, but I'd say this product is going to be a direct competitor to Micosoft Surface. I think it's gonna see the first version of OS X with significant changes to also be used as a tablet, like Windows 10. No way are they going to make a 12" iOS device.

 

[pietrov]

I'm not so sure that it will come with a retina (or some very high resolution).
They'll produce a non retina and than, after 9-12 months they'll realize a higer grade rosolution, obliging us to buy the new one...

 

[Chupa Chupa]

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.

I don't follow. Both the corporate world and professional graphics are already adopting iOS in favor of laptops, where practical, and Android devices and continue to buy in to its potential. That's part of what the IBM partnering is about, where IBM can directly integrate iPads and iPhones to the corporate intranet with custom apps. A beefed up iPad seems Apple's next step for iPad growth.

The consumer market is nearly tapped out, relying on every 3-4 year upgraders, maybe even fewer in the future with such quick adoption of the iPhone 5.5" screen format.

 

[LostMyiPhone]

This is dumb beyond dumb ....
Tabs are fading out: not because they're unpopular, but because iPads are
so damn well-made, there's no compelling reason to buy a brand new one every year.

THE COMPELLING REASON WOULD BE THE LARGER [SCREEN] SIZE....

How do you not see this?

 

[pcaleb]

Musicians are going to be all over this.

For those of us in the music field, this is exactly what we've been waiting for, an iPad with a screen almost large enough to display our scores at full size. (Ideally, it would be even bigger--14 to 15 inches.) Believe me, you're going to see iPad Pros on stages everywhere.

 

[iPadCary]

THE COMPELLING REASON WOULD BE THE LARGER [SCREEN] SIZE....
How do you not see this?

I don't see this because I can't imagine someone who doesn't already own an iPad,
seeing one with a 12 inch screen and suddenly saying: Boy howdy, I gotta get one of those!

Perhaps you'd care to explain why I'm wrong?

 

[wigby]

...If you ignore the lack of a mute/lock switch.

And the sound vibrations.

And the screen distortion.

And if you evaluate an iPad based on how thin it is. Then, I'm sure the newest iPad is the "best iPad ever". Too bad it's far from being better enough from the old ones to make people actually excited about upgrading.

The iPads are failing. Because Apple has failed to innovate. And so, they can't find ways to give people reasons to update their old iPads, other than the rabid fanboys who would have bought anything regardless. Slightly thinner, slightly faster and with a slightly better camera (but no flash, LOL) don't cut it anymore.



Hah! I wish! Wait and you will see how the iPad Pro still has a maximum of 9 icons on display within a folder.

Oh, is that what that switch on the side is for? Never used it once and most people don't even know it's there.

What's a sound vibration? You mean like a sound wave?

Screen distortion? Haven't heard about that but I did hear they fused the glass and LCD together so now the pixels are even closer to the surface. Is that what you mean by distortion?

Sorry but your thin argument is wearing thin. Get it? Seriously, the iPad Air can be so much thinner and I'm looking forward to it. It's mostly about the weight but that is interconnected with thinness. Put it this way, when I can hold full color, retina display on a 9.7" tablet in hand for a half an hour without my wrist getting tired, we'll be getting close to ideal. These tablets can be about 1mm thick and still be easy and comfortable to hold for long periods of time. This is years away but unless they iterate every generation and push for thinness, we will never see any design improvement unless you wait 5-10 years for a battery performance breakthrough.

I look at computers and a TV (like many users) while I use my iPad so I don't need multitasking windows on my iPad too. Maybe when iPad pro comes along I'll want or need to multitask on a tablet. But Apple's obviously waiting out that game (just like they do every market) until the time and technology are right.

 

[LostMyiPhone]

I don't see this because I can't imagine someone who doesn't already own an iPad,
seeing one with a 12 inch screen and suddenly saying: Boy howdy, I gotta get one of those!

Perhaps you'd care to explain why I'm wrong?

Really?

You don't see how a 12"+ iPad would be appealing to someone who does not currently own an iPad?

...Like elderly people who don't see well? Or (like the bigger iPhone launch) Android converts?

You really see ZERO appeal of a larger iPad to the piece of the market that does not already own an iPad?


EDIT: Not to mention, in the post that I quoted, you said: "....because iPads are
so damn well-made, there's no compelling reason to buy a brand new one every year."

This would infer that people DO already own one...

My point was that the screen is a reason to buy an iPad for people who ALREADY HAVE THEM.

 

[ICEMAN-sven]

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.

Apple/Sharp/LG/SAMSUNG made big improvements. A Retina HD x3 vs Retina x2 display has on same area properly equal power consumption. And Apple has more space in the Pro for a bigger battery.
Bigger body = bigger heatsink. The A8X can run on another power profile.
Power is properly not a big concern for Apple. The Air 2 is worse than the Air in this area.
And please forget a specific PPI is enough. More is always better. For non VR use, 600 PPI is properly sufficient. For good VR you need 4k or better in a 5-7" display.
And the most important factor for a GUI/display is latency. All you need for a good experience is a GPU to pump the data fast enough. The arithmetic power of the shaders are in this not important. A8X will do it.

 

[ICEMAN-sven]

What's the point to have a high density screen if you plan to run scaled up 1x apps at 3x. That's not how it works.

I think you have no glue how this works. I was writing about 3D Apps that use heavily the GPU. Render to a lower resolution and scaling it up, is a common practice. Ask any console game developer.
Most Apps do not touch a 3D API. There use Quartz 2D. And this needs not much GPU.

 

[chleuasme]

I think you have no glue how this works. I was writing about 3D Apps that use heavily the GPU. Render to a lower resolution and scaling it up, is a common practice. Ask any console game developer.
Most Apps do not touch a 3D API. There use Quartz 2D. And this needs not much GPU.

No glue, some clues.
Yes, ok, you can always render at an intermediate resolution 3D games and scale to fit the screen's larger resolution, and rely on the high pixel density to optically bring attenuation on aliasing and scaling artifacts. I also agree the future will be higher pixel density screens.
Now, iOS and available APIs are full of transitions and 2D/3D effects relying on the GPU too, but you seem certain that the A8X could also be able to drive a 1280x960 @3x screen smoothly.

I still question the benefit to, rather than use a 2560x1920 (5MPx) resolution for example on 12", jump as you propose to 3840x2880 (11MPx that's a lot more than your typical 4K display at 8MPx!). And in both case, for the subset of 3D apps/games asking high GPU resources, you'd anyway have to render at a lower resolution and scale up to fit, while other apps work fine at 264 ppi and there don't really seem to be a real appeal to reach higher pixel densities (with performances trade-offs, including power consumption and then battery life; a smaller battery mean less weight, important factor for a large tablet. I don't know if the volume gained with the growth in size would be sufficient to afford a 400 ppi screen without making a brick).
If you want to take as reference what Apple recently did with the 6+, you could at this point as well also consider any 4:3 resolution between 2560x1920 and 3840x2880, and with iOS apps rendered @3x and scaled down to the screen's resolution.

I'd bet Apple would first go with a 264 ppi version and in few years have the jump in resolution, and 400 ppi is a logical candidate for iPads.

 

[Essaux]

In all honesty. I don't see the value of owning an iPad Pro.....

If I need to do Pro stuff then I rather use an actual MacBook Pro, which gives me way more options than using an iPad Pro.

 

[sonicrobby]

In all honesty. I don't see the value of owning an iPad Pro.....

If I need to do Pro stuff then I rather use an actual MacBook Pro, which gives me way more options than using an iPad Pro.

It would depend on the features, because Id prefer to use a pro tablet over a pro laptop. I've just yet to see a pro tablet... OSX is a must though, if it runs iOS, then there can be no pro from it... from me anyway