Sidebar Sidebar
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

sonicrobby said:
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
Click to expand...

It just seems so gimmicky... I mean what kind of Pro stuff are you really going to do with just a touch screen?

There is no way you can professionally edit photos, videos or work in graphic design without something like a keyboard (for shortcuts) and/or a mouse/wacom.

Maybe, someone someday will convince me that an iPad Pro is legitimately useful as a Pro device other then functioning as a glorified external screen...
 
Essaux said:
It just seems so gimmicky... I mean what kind of Pro stuff are you really going to do with just a touch screen?

There is no way you can professionally edit photos, videos or work in graphic design without something like a keyboard (for shortcuts) and/or a mouse/wacom.

Maybe, someone someday will convince me that an iPad Pro is legitimately useful as a Pro device other then functioning as a glorified external screen...
Click to expand...

We can start by waiting for it to actually be released and see what it has :D
 
chleuasme said:
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.
Click to expand...

Argh! English not my first language.:eek:

I am not in Apple SoC engineering team. I can only speculate and read the signs. But the A8X itself is the biggest broad hint.
For the 2013 Air, A7 was enough. But the 2014 Air got the A8X. If Apple want only to go x2 with the Pro, the A8 would be still sufficient. At 2560x1920 it would need to push 1.56 times more pixel. It does only need a higher clocked A8. Why then spent millions in the A8X fork? We really need a depth analysis of the metal layer. Where is Anand when you need him.;)
And the Pro will be less mobile than the Air. It is tailored for stationary business and home use. So weight is less a problem. And if you want to go after 'print quality', I suspect this is something Apple wants go after. Imagine a iPad 'to print to'. A iCloud printer driver. You can take you 'prints' witch you. No paper, toner or ink wasted. The marked for iPad can explode. There is real money there. For now most iPad see use in high level jobs. Imagine a office where practically everybody will use a iPad to replace paper.
You really need more than 264 ppi for it to be working. Print is 360 DPI and higher.
 
sonicrobby said:
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
Click to expand...
The closest to a pro tablet I've used was the Surface 2. Even with the lack of touch-optimized apps, I could do some serious stuff with it.

A "Pro" tablet needs to have ports... display-out and USB hosting, and support for removable media. Apple is going to have to do a few unprecedented things to include those in a tablet.
 
iPadCary said:
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?
Click to expand...

If it had a removable keyboard like a surface, not just a aftermarket add on, I would buy it.
 
Wow yeah can't wait for just a bigger iPad. What good is a 12 inch tablet without digitizer support and certainly without a real operating system?
 
brinary001 said:
Wow yeah can't wait for just a bigger iPad. What good is a 12 inch tablet without digitizer support and certainly without a real operating system?
Click to expand...

for one thing, it would make a great replacement for my kitchen tv. :D
 
brock2621 said:
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).
Click to expand...



completely wrong.


a majority of our customers are waiting for the 13" inch tablet, to show more data ( more products on one screen, descriptions, details, etc etc)

for home use it will be useful as well with people that want a bigger tablet at home to replace a laptop or for watching videos.


but for the business side a i see a big upside, it doesnt really matter about multi tasking or new features.

the screen real estate would be just enough. not even that you have a 13" iPad and you can create multiple subviews within on view controller (like the ESPN Scorecenter iPad app)
 
brock2621 said:
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).
Click to expand...

Well...
I'm certainly not "a ton" of people. =P
But, I'm super jazzed & have been since the very 1st rumor.
I, of course, want some power features like user accounts & the entire screen to support force touch... but, as far as multiple windows goes-I'm sure it'll have that ability, but I truly don't care.
I just want to read my comic books, read my webpages, consume my content, play my games, etc. all at the size of a standard printed magazine.
Magazines haven't changed size in decades... it is a magnificently comfortable and appropriate size (and weight) to consume content. Now that the screens can recreate that beautiful "glossy magazine photo" feel, I'd love to have a device that size. I don't worry about it being heavy... I've noticed that the Air 2 "feels" lighter than the Mini, I assume because of the weight distribution.

/my two cents
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back