Microsoft Executive Says iPad Pro Was Apple's Response to Surface

[Keirasplace]

I do believe the color accuracy on the Surface Pro displays is quite good and it has a wider color gamut than the iPad Pro. Anyone doing professional work would also likely calibrate everything anyways.

The think you are missing in this whole debate is that you CAN use a Surface Pro with "many big ass screens" and you can not use the iPad Pro that way. You can also disconnect it from said screens and carry it with you when you go out the door.

This is not that difficult really. The Surface Pro serves the customer that wants ONE computer that they can use in their office and carry on the road as a laptop or tablet. The iPad Pro serves the customer that wants TWO (or more) computers that gives them a dedicated tablet and a separate dedicated laptop or desktop. And of course, there are people like my wife who don't do anything but browse, email, and look at pictures... and she can use the iPad just fine.

That wasn't the argument of the person I replied too, so not sure what you're talking about.
He was arguing that the Ipad Pro couldn't edit 4K video, which it easily can.
And basically was a ****, "non pro", device despite seemingly not having used it at all.

The Ipad Pro has a brighter screen and more accurate colors, and a slightly lower gamut 122% versus 140% of srgb.
It's camera can actually produce shots in that gamut too.

Also, the "surface Pro" is a bit generic as a comparaison when only the really crappy m3 is in the Ipad pro price range and you have to go for the I7 one to really compare and it is like at least 2 times the price.

Pros are not editing 4K video with the m3 or even m5 variant of the surface pro, even if you plug a screen into it.
And I doubt very much they're even using the m7 too for that reason. Like I said, no real pro is going to
waste their precious editing minutes on a laptop or a tablet. At most it will be used to set up assets for later editing.

 

[AFEPPL]

As you say, pros are not using the iPad either...

 

[Keirasplace]

As you say, pros are not using the iPad either...

For video editing 4K footage, no, they're not (they can do it, but the screens are too small to decently edit these kind of things), neither are they using the Surface or any other laptop.
That's is indeed logical.

For some other things, like asset corrections, setup in the production pipeline though, both Surface and Ipad Pros can be used.

For some specific cases, the Ipad pro is much better, the ability to be easily mounted on booms/tripods and moved around and the high luminosity of the screens (and it is pretty light too), makes it great for field work.

 

[AFEPPL]

surface had one of the best screens on offer, so the screen technology is not really a differentiator.
http://www.displaymate.com/Surface_Pro4_ShootOut_1.htm

 

[Uofmtiger]

For video editing 4K footage, no, they're not (they can do it, but the screens are too small to decently edit these kind of things), neither are they using the Surface or any other laptop.
That's is indeed logical.

For some other things, like asset corrections, setup in the production pipeline though, both Surface and Ipad Pros can be used.

For some specific cases, the pad pro is much better, the ability to be easily mounted on booms/tripods and moved around and the high luminosity of the screens (and it is pretty light too), makes it great for field work.

Which gets back to the point that Apple has chosen to use a touch based OS that has millions of apps available for doing pretty much anything you don't need a more powerful computer with a larger display to handle. They obviously realize that, at this point, there is still a need for a 27 inch iMac and for laptops that are ergonomically ideal for the lap and run apps that iOS can't currently run. They are simply making the iPad more useful for "Pros" (people that want to use them for work) every year...with HDR, 120 hz, improved multitasking, Files app, etc. without making the experience worse for those that just want to use it as a tablet for consuming media.

I think they are trying to make sure that "Pro" level improvements (which I believe they were going to add with or without the Surface line) don't create the situation where you need two different OS interfaces to handle (ie the jump from touch ("metro") to mouse OS that Microsoft prefers).

The thing that is interesting is that they are campaigning that the iPad is a computer replacement. While I think that does add fuel to the fire of critics, I think they want to plant the seed that the iPad can be more useful and easier to use than a laptop for a large percentage of people. I think the "Pro" moniker isn't there for the miniscule amount of people that edit feature films for a living, it is for people that can use it, one way or another, for the work that they do. I work in a professional environment and I see iPads around all the time. They often supplement the workstations that our company supplies.

What is interesting is that the Mac is making more money for Apple than the iPad, but Apple obviously has more enthusiasm for the iPad platform, so I think they will continue to integrate pro features into the iPad in the future.

 

[convergent]

Which gets back to the point that Apple has chosen to use a touch based OS that has millions of apps available for doing pretty much anything you don't need a more powerful computer with a larger display to handle. They obviously realize that, at this point, there is still a need for a 27 inch iMac and for laptops that are ergonomically ideal for the lap and run apps that iOS can't currently run. They are simply making the iPad more useful for "Pros" (people that want to use them for work) every year...with HDR, 120 hz, improved multitasking, Files app, etc. without making the experience worse for those that just want to use it as a tablet for consuming media.

This is quite a spin. "They obviously realize that you need a more powerful computer with a big display to do some things", so they make you buy a completely separate computer for that with a completely different OS and interface, rather than simply attach the big display to your one computer and allow you to learn one OS. As for their adding new features to the iPad to make it more useful... how many years has it taken to get copy/paste (which still isn't shipped yet)? At that rate, I will be dead before the iPad becomes a capable computer replacement. And if you think they aren't making the experience worse for the iPad users that wanted just a tablet, you are wrong. Complexity is complexity. The stupid 3D touch on my iPhone is a pain to me daily when I want to simply move an icon... it takes me 30 seconds to get it to stop thinking I'm doing 3D touch.

I think they are trying to make sure that "Pro" level improvements (which I believe they were going to add with or without the Surface line) don't create the situation where you need two different OS interfaces to handle (ie the jump from touch ("metro") to mouse OS that Microsoft prefers).

So two different devices to haul around and pay for is better than one that gives you different modes? You have to learn to use iOS and MacOS, so how is that any different from learning to use the touch mode of Windows and the non-touch mode? Its quite simple to go back and forth. And the more Microsoft works at this, the better it gets. Meanwhile, Apple sits there being stubborn and refusing to let touch and pen make its way to MacOS.

The thing that is interesting is that they are campaigning that the iPad is a computer replacement. While I think that does add fuel to the fire of critics, I think they want to plant the seed that the iPad can be more useful and easier to use than a laptop for a large percentage of people. I think the "Pro" moniker isn't there for the miniscule amount of people that edit feature films for a living, it is for people that can use it, one way or another, for the work that they do. I work in a professional environment and I see iPads around all the time. They often supplement the workstations that our company supplies.

What is interesting is that the Mac is making more money for Apple than the iPad, but Apple obviously has more enthusiasm for the iPad platform, so I think they will continue to integrate pro features into the iPad in the future.

There are a vast number of professionals that only need email and a browser to do their job. They can get away with an iPad today. The people that can't, are the many professionals that produce things. The iPad is capable of creating a complex spreadsheet.... of course. But am I going to be able to do it better on an iPad than on a full function computer with a big display, keyboard, and mouse? Will I prefer to do it on an iPad? No.

You stick on the Apple model, and you are stuck with needing an iPad and a Macbook to accomplish what you can do with one device on Windows. Apple shows no signs of changing their strategy; and Microsoft will keep getting better with theirs. Its a simple choice and every user will decide which they prefer and buy accordingly. Apple will continue to plod along with the Mac line doing enough to keep people buying them at premium prices, but nothing exciting or innovative coming. Both Apple and Microsoft will continue to make a lot of money and we live in a great time where we have choices.

 

[shadowmatt]

That wasn't the argument of the person I replied too, so not sure what you're talking about.
He was arguing that the Ipad Pro couldn't edit 4K video, which it easily can.
And basically was a ****, "non pro", device despite seemingly not having used it at all.

The Ipad Pro has a brighter screen and more accurate colors, and a slightly lower gamut 122% versus 140% of srgb.
It's camera can actually produce shots in that gamut too.

Also, the "surface Pro" is a bit generic as a comparaison when only the really crappy m3 is in the Ipad pro price range and you have to go for the I7 one to really compare and it is like at least 2 times the price.

Pros are not editing 4K video with the m3 or even m5 variant of the surface pro, even if you plug a screen into it.
And I doubt very much they're even using the m7 too for that reason. Like I said, no real pro is going to
waste their precious editing minutes on a laptop or a tablet. At most it will be used to set up assets for later editing.

Yes this is what I said

"Certain tech become standard at some point. Like lets say 4K video. So now iMovie needs to edit 4K video, GPU's needs to support / accelerate that, storage needs to increase to support the extra space the files take up, bus speeds need to increase to transfer the files at an acceptable rate, and so on and so on

He went a bit overboard with triple SLi with sod all supports. But he is right, Pro should mean something and an iPad with Apple's restrictions and a child like operating system is anything but Pro.

The screen is bigger though"

You really are an angry little man. Seem to go around these forums proclaiming how great you are.

What happens when you want to install a new codec for instance, or export the video in one of the many formats iOS / Apple doesn't support on the iPad Pro. You can't.

Editing video in H.264, yeah the iPad has a chip specifically designed to encode/decode video recorded by an iPhone level device, a consumer level codec which doesn't exactly produce the best results. Can it do ProRes, no. Does the iPad do a quick and dirty render, yes. Is the actual video you are editing a cut down version, at a lower resolution than the actual format, yes.

The iPad Pro cannot even support any of the file formats that a pro would use, and it physically cant. The hardware is not designed to support it.

So yeah a 'Pro' like yourself could shoot and edit the video on an iPad ( not sure the quality you are aiming for, but I'm guessing you either work in porn or cctv ), or take professionally shot video, run it through a convertor on a desktop / laptop to an iPad friendly, but inferior format, so you can then edit in iMovie to your heart's content. And then export that already compressed video back to the inferior format.

So yeah it is possible, with Apple's restrictions ( as I said ) to actually think you are editing 4K video. But in reality you are very far away from the professional world.

Also, why go on about the iPad's colour accuracy. Are you telling me you do your colour grading on an iPad as well? You are not supposed to switch monitors / rooms / lighting conditions / angle of screen. Using an iPad, it is a joke.

 

[Uofmtiger]

This is quite a spin. "They obviously realize that you need a more powerful computer with a big display to do some things", so they make you buy a completely separate computer for that with a completely different OS and interface, rather than simply attach the big display to your one computer and allow you to learn one OS.

Yes, for right now, they want you to buy a computer that is ideal as a tablet and a laptop that is ideal for working on higher end programs. As I mentioned, the swiss army knife approach, isn't the ideal solution for a lot of people. Your complaint is like someone walking into a store that sells knives and asking why you need a cleaver and a pairing knife when you Swiss Army knife can do the job.

As for their adding new features to the iPad to make it more useful... how many years has it taken to get copy/paste (which still isn't shipped yet)?

This comment makes no sense. Copy and paste has been around for a while. If you are not aware, they have also added copy and paste to the "Universal Clipboard" which means you can copy from your iOS device and paste to your Mac.

And if you think they aren't making the experience worse for the iPad users that wanted just a tablet, you are wrong. Complexity is complexity. The stupid 3D touch on my iPhone is a pain to me daily when I want to simply move an icon... it takes me 30 seconds to get it to stop thinking I'm doing 3D touch.

I was referring to pro level additions like multitasking, Pencil support, and the keyboard. I don't think 3D touch was meant to be a "pro" feature. It was added to give people shortcuts to often used features in apps. I use it every day. Yes, it makes it harder to move apps around, but I move apps around apps a lot less than I actually use them.

So two different devices to haul around and pay for is better than one that gives you different modes?

Yes, for me it is. I prefer a purpose built machine to a jack of all trades that has sacrifices at every turn. I already mentioned that I like a 15 inch screen on my laptop, but that screen is too large to make a decent tablet. I bought a laptop for the ability to work on the couch or take it where I am going. I need a 15 inch screen to make it useful for my needs.

If Apple made a 12 inch touch MBP, I would still prefer an iPad and a 15 inch MBP for the way I use the computer.

And the more Microsoft works at this, the better it gets. Meanwhile, Apple sits there being stubborn and refusing to let touch and pen make its way to MacOS.

Personally, I think they could add Pen input without changing the entire OS to some sort of iOS/MacOS hybrid and making it tablet sized. It could be less like the Surface and more like the Toshiba 15 inch laptop I own in some respects. There is no need for the "tablet mode" on my 15 inch screen Toshiba, but Pen input (if it was more accurate...like the Apple Pencil) would be useful for my needs in certain apps like Photoshop. I don't need it to be a tablet, though. Pencil input on MacOS using a 15inch MBP would be nice to have, but it would not replace my iPad. As I said earlier, I prefer the two device approach.

You have to learn to use iOS and MacOS, so how is that any different from learning to use the touch mode of Windows and the non-touch mode? Its quite simple to go back and forth. And the more Microsoft works at this, the better it gets. Meanwhile, Apple sits there being stubborn and refusing to let touch and pen make its way to MacOS.

This is really two separate subjects. The Surface tablet hybrid device is a different concept than Apple just adding Pencil input on their Macs. I would be happy to have the ability to edit notes, touch up on Photoshop, etc. without needing a Wacom tablet or using Astropad. That being said, they don't need to make it an iPad replacement. The iPad is already a great tablet, and gets better every year, so I think Apple will continue to sell it. In other words, I would buy a 15 inch MBP that had Pencil input before I would buy some sort of hybrid 12 inch MacOS that was a compromise in the numerous ways I already mentioned.

Personally, if Adobe would make a Photoshop version for the iPad that competed with Affinity, it would be the answer to all of me "pencil" input needs. I don't know what Apple needs to do to make that happen, but it needs to be a priority. As it is, Affinity is getting better and better at it and Adobe is just sitting on the sidelines.

There are a vast number of professionals that only need email and a browser to do their job. They can get away with an iPad today. The people that can't, are the many professionals that produce things. The iPad is capable of creating a complex spreadsheet.... of course. But am I going to be able to do it better on an iPad than on a full function computer with a big display, keyboard, and mouse? Will I prefer to do it on an iPad? No.

You stick on the Apple model, and you are stuck with needing an iPad and a Macbook to accomplish what you can do with one device on Windows. Apple shows no signs of changing their strategy; and Microsoft will keep getting better with theirs. Its a simple choice and every user will decide which they prefer and buy accordingly. Apple will continue to plod along with the Mac line doing enough to keep people buying them at premium prices, but nothing exciting or innovative coming. Both Apple and Microsoft will continue to make a lot of money and we live in a great time where we have choices.

More and more companies are going with server oriented solutions that simply need a browser to access. However, I still do a lot of work on a laptop and I prefer working on a spreadsheet using a 15 inch display compared to a 12 inch display. The bigger the screen, the easier it is for me to do real work. That hasn't changed and I often don't want to sit in an office when I want to do work, so I want my screen to be as big as I can handle. I have had an 18 inch laptop and smaller laptops, so I know that 15 is my ideal size.

As I said, I prefer two devices. That will continue to be the case until they make a computer that can stretch to 15 inches when I need the screen space and shrink to 10 inches when I want to lay on the couch and read a book.