Verge: "Pro Developers Opting out of iPad Pro"

[aevan]

Ummm a few years back you would have added "apple will not release a stylus" simple fact is no one knows what apple will do. That includes yourself. Did you predict apple would create a range of computer products that would be glued together and non user serviceable? No apple users knew what was going to happen, or were informed . You , me, everyone is uninformed when it comes to future apple products. All we can do is debate and speculate . Easy to take the high ground post launch. Sorry that is the harsh truth .

True, I don't know what Apple would do - and to be perfectly honest, I didn't think a stylus was coming. I had a discussion with a friend and told him - "I would just love it if Apple came up with a stylus, but I don't think it would've happen".

But, there is a difference. At the time, iPad was super successful and the pen tech required some heavy, bloated stuff that only Wacom was able to put inside bulky devices. However, even then I didn't claim there would be no stylus as a certainty, and when first rumors of an Apple Pencil came up, I believed there was truth in them.

On the other hand - rumors of OS X coming to iPad are a different thing. It just won't happen. I'm not saying that Apple won't make some significant pro-level changes to iPad iOS (and they may end up calling it differently, who knows). This is the part where I just don't know what Apple will do, and no one but Apple does. I also don't know if they will make a TV or a car. I don't know if they will make a 4" iPhone again or if they will get rid of the home button. No idea - I can only speculate like everyone else and read rumors.

But OS X on iPad? No. It won't happen. It's just as likely as Apple putting Android on a phone. Sure they COULD do it, but they would never do it - because of so many reasons I wouldn't know where to begin. But ok, I'll try with the most important one:

OS X apps wouldn't work on an ARM CPU (the same reason we won't see an ARM-based Mac anytime soon). The user interface would also have to change drastically. I guess what most people mean when they say "it should run OS X" - they mean it would be able to run OS X apps (Apple could make a more OS X like iOS interface, but it still wouldn't be OS X without the desktop apps). But these apps just won't run on anything other than an x86 CPU, so they would have to be recompiled. Backwards compatibility would die - you wouldn't be able to run un-ported OS X apps on ARM and you wouldn't be able to run un-ported iOS apps on OS X. Basically, nothing would work without some serious work from each and every developer. The apps themselves - their interfaces would also have to be modified for touch, etc. It would be a huge effort - and you'd basically end up with a Mac with touch (and if they wanted that, they wouldn't make an iPad, they would just add touch to a MacBook and remove the keyboard).

For a developer it would take an exact same effort to port an OS X app to run on an ARM device and add touch UI as it would to simply make an iOS app. So, basically, the only reason you'd want to have OS X on the iPad - the apps - is impossible to achieve. If Apple wanted a more Mac-like experience for the iPad, they would change the UI of some future iOS (which they may end up doing), but they wouldn't call it OS X because it would cause confusion where people would expect their OS X apps to work.

The only way they could make an OS X tablet is to switch to a x86 CPU like Microsoft. That would mean abandoning the huge investment they made into their own CPU design. And it would mean getting a worse CPU - the iPad wouldn't be as thin and the battery wouldn't last as much and they would have to make a completely new UI for OS X and that's just not going to happen.

The world of tech is ever changing. One day Apple may decide to switch from Intel CPUs to their own ARM designs. They would have to beat Intel at intensive computing tasks first - they are better at power consumption and heat, but they can't beat a Xeon CPU in raw performance. But even if they did, it would be a massive undertaking that would last for years - just like it did when they switched from PowerPC to Intel. Only after this long transition, the time would come to even consider merging iOS and OS X. And only then - only then - you could hope to see that unified OS on an iPad. By that time it wouldn't even be called iOS or OS X anymore - and probably wouldn't look like either of them. And you'd see it coming, years earlier. So, Apple would first have to start laying the groundwork for something like that, and that would require much more than just making a fast iPad with a keyboard.

I tried explaining the best I could. I hope you now see why no one took rumors of OS X on an iPad seriously, while rumors of a Stylus were different.

 

[dyn]

I think developers can make more money with cheaper apps. I will definitely not buy a 50€ draw app but will buy one for 10€. And I think I am not the only one how think so.

Depends on what you get for it. OmniFocus is a good example where the iOS version is almost exactly the same as the desktop version. Which is why it also costs about the same. That I don't mind. In some cases it's also about being able to use both your iPad and your Mac.

The same dynamic is true for OS X and Windows.

People spend more money on apps on iOS than they do on any other OS. There's a market for high priced apps, but high priced apps will never be the norm, just as they aren't the norm on desktop systems.

People will spend whatever amount of money on anything if they find it is worth it. Doesn't matter if it only costs them 99ct or 99$ it's all about what you get for that money.

No, iPad will not get mouse support.

I'm not too sure on this one considering the keyboard support and how they are now working together with both IBM and Cisco. Citrix uses their own mouse (which is a generic bluetooth mouse slightly modified) that you can connect to their Citrix Receiver app. For these kind of appliances there might be mouse support in the future. I would definitely not expect any more than that. It's not as if you can now control an iPad with a mouse more like controlling things in 3rd party apps with a mouse.

Quote the rest of the message you just replied to.

I'm getting tired of your straw man, selective editing.

Just let it go, he's not worth it.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Just let it go, he's not worth it.

Totally agree!
Please liberally use the ignore button. That's what it's for!

 

[aevan]

I'm not too sure on this one considering the keyboard support and how they are now working together with both IBM and Cisco. Citrix uses their own mouse (which is a generic bluetooth mouse slightly modified) that you can connect to their Citrix Receiver app. For these kind of appliances there might be mouse support in the future. I would definitely not expect any more than that. It's not as if you can now control an iPad with a mouse more like controlling things in 3rd party apps with a mouse.

This is a bit more tricky to predict. While there is no chance at all of having OS X on an iPad, there is a slim chance of adding mouse support in iOS. Unlike OS X on iPad, mouse support would be technically possible and not very hard to do (in fact, it would require minimal effort to add a pointer and have it controlled by a BT mouse or trackpad). However, that would also require some compromises in how you operate your iOS device and, well, it just wouldn't be Apple style. There is a different topic where this is discussed here:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/is-magic-mouse-mice-support-likely-for-ipads.1939038/

I seriously doubt it. It wouldn't be impossible and I'd even like to be able to use the mouse, but I am almost certain Apple won't do it. HOWEVER - depending on what type of peripherals the Smart Connector can use - what kind of data can it receive - it is quite possible a 3rd party mouse would show up. But it wouldn't work system-wide, just in apps that specifically support it. Just as it was the case with 3rd party smart-styluses. If it would turn out to be really really popular, then maybe Apple would change its mind in time for iPad Pro 3

 

[MH01]

True, I don't know what Apple would do - and to be perfectly honest, I didn't think a stylus was coming. I had a discussion with a friend and told him - "I would just love it if Apple came up with a stylus, but I don't think it would've happen".

But, there is a difference. At the time, iPad was super successful and the pen tech required some heavy, bloated stuff that only Wacom was able to put inside bulky devices. However, even then I didn't claim there would be no stylus as a certainty, and when first rumors of an Apple Pencil came up, I believed there was truth in them.

On the other hand - rumors of OS X coming to iPad are a different thing. It just won't happen. I'm not saying that Apple won't make some significant pro-level changes to iPad iOS (and they may end up calling it differently, who knows). This is the part where I just don't know what Apple will do, and no one but Apple does. I also don't know if they will make a TV or a car. I don't know if they will make a 4" iPhone again or if they will get rid of the home button. No idea - I can only speculate like everyone else and read rumors.

But OS X on iPad? No. It won't happen. It's just as likely as Apple putting Android on a phone. Sure they COULD do it, but they would never do it - because of so many reasons I wouldn't know where to begin. But ok, I'll try with the most important one:

OS X apps wouldn't work on an ARM CPU (the same reason we won't see an ARM-based Mac anytime soon). The user interface would also have to change drastically. I guess what most people mean when they say "it should run OS X" - they mean it would be able to run OS X apps (Apple could make a more OS X like iOS interface, but it still wouldn't be OS X without the desktop apps). But these apps just won't run on anything other than an x86 CPU, so they would have to be recompiled. Backwards compatibility would die - you wouldn't be able to run un-ported OS X apps on ARM and you wouldn't be able to run un-ported iOS apps on OS X. Basically, nothing would work without some serious work from each and every developer. The apps themselves - their interfaces would also have to be modified for touch, etc. It would be a huge effort - and you'd basically end up with a Mac with touch (and if they wanted that, they wouldn't make an iPad, they would just add touch to a MacBook and remove the keyboard).

For a developer it would take an exact same effort to port an OS X app to run on an ARM device and add touch UI as it would to simply make an iOS app. So, basically, the only reason you'd want to have OS X on the iPad - the apps - is impossible to achieve. If Apple wanted a more Mac-like experience for the iPad, they would change the UI of some future iOS (which they may end up doing), but they wouldn't call it OS X because it would cause confusion where people would expect their OS X apps to work.

The only way they could make an OS X tablet is to switch to a x86 CPU like Microsoft. That would mean abandoning the huge investment they made into their own CPU design. And it would mean getting a worse CPU - the iPad wouldn't be as thin and the battery wouldn't last as much and they would have to make a completely new UI for OS X and that's just not going to happen.

The world of tech is ever changing. One day Apple may decide to switch from Intel CPUs to their own ARM designs. They would have to beat Intel at intensive computing tasks first - they are better at power consumption and heat, but they can't beat a Xeon CPU in raw performance. But even if they did, it would be a massive undertaking that would last for years - just like it did when they switched from PowerPC to Intel. Only after this long transition, the time would come to even consider merging iOS and OS X. And only then - only then - you could hope to see that unified OS on an iPad. By that time it wouldn't even be called iOS or OS X anymore - and probably wouldn't look like either of them. And you'd see it coming, years earlier. So, Apple would first have to start laying the groundwork for something like that, and that would require much more than just making a fast iPad with a keyboard.

I tried explaining the best I could. I hope you now see why no one took rumors of OS X on an iPad seriously, while rumors of a Stylus were different.

I agree with your logic and rationale. Thanks of for taking run time to write it up, well thought out.

Personally I believe the iPad pro happened , in its current iteration, due to the drop in sales in iPads . Had they continued to be strong , apple would not have launched my iPad pro in my opinion . It's the evolution of the device, trying to attract new users and industries.

I'm quite surprised how many people of MR have trashed the iPad pro.

I'll be honest for me, it's an iPad plus, I really like it.

 

[Gav2k]

Same thing happened with the original iPhone and the original iPad. What made these devices smash records was and still is the best App Store on the planet. The iPad pro will knock the ball out of the park as devs harness it's features!

 

[aevan]

I agree with your logic and rationale. Thanks of for taking run time to write it up, well thought out.

Thanks for an interesting discussion and for reading that huge wall of text One thing I absolutely agree with you is that iOS for iPad needs work if the iPad is going to become "Pro". It's one of these things where I am not expecting much from Apple, stubborn as they seem to be in some things, but where I'm hoping. I'm really hoping they do something to bring out the HUGE potential from iPad Pro - both in iOS design, and in treatment of developers and working with them. They should treat iOS apps as full apps that can cost a lot of money and allow refunds and free trials. Also, they should work with developers directly. One of the reasons Procreate was able to make such an amazing app for the Pencil is because Apple worked with them. I hope they do that more - not just with software developers but with hardware partners too (like they did with Logitech). While I doubt it, I would love it if they would allow Wacom to make some kind of advanced stylus for the iPad Pro (again, I don't think it will happen, but one can dream).

Personally I believe the iPad pro happened , in its current iteration, due to the drop in sales in iPads . Had they continued to be strong , apple would not have launched my iPad pro in my opinion . It's the evolution of the device, trying to attract new users and industries.

My thoughts exactly! I can't be sure, but if iPad continued to grow in its initial form, we probably would never get a 'pro' type device with a stylus.

I'm quite surprised how many people of MR have trashed the iPad pro. I'll be honest for me, it's an iPad plus, I really like it.

I LOVE it! MR is a group of great people, but among them are some of the most spoiled and unrealistic people I have ever seen I guess it's the same on any forum. Please ignore all the hate. People here are hating on some amazing products for ridiculous reasons.

iPad Pro is an amazing device, I love it more each day and I still haven't even got my hands on a Pencil. When I get it I expect to explode of joy

 

[xraydoc]

I'm totally happy with my iPad Pro. Pencil is far better than any other active BT stylus I've tried. It'll replace pen & paper for me. Split screen is great with such a large display. Web pages snap open after than on my laptop. Battery life is equivalent to all other iPads I've used and far better than any laptop I own (including the Microsoft Surface Pro 3, which I may now sell).

 

[MH01]

Thanks for an interesting discussion and for reading that huge wall of text One thing I absolutely agree with you is that iOS for iPad needs work if the iPad is going to become "Pro". It's one of these things where I am not expecting much from Apple, stubborn as they seem to be in some things, but where I'm hoping. I'm really hoping they do something to bring out the HUGE potential from iPad Pro - both in iOS design, and in treatment of developers and working with them. They should treat iOS apps as full apps that can cost a lot of money and allow refunds and free trials. Also, they should work with developers directly. One of the reasons Procreate was able to make such an amazing app for the Pencil is because Apple worked with them. I hope they do that more - not just with software developers but with hardware partners too (like they did with Logitech). While I doubt it, I would love it if they would allow Wacom to make some kind of advanced stylus for the iPad Pro (again, I don't think it will happen, but one can dream).



My thoughts exactly! I can't be sure, but if iPad continued to grow in its initial form, we probably would never get a 'pro' type device with a stylus.



I LOVE it! MR is a group of great people, but among them are some of the most spoiled and unrealistic people I have ever seen I guess it's the same on any forum. Please ignore all the hate. People here are hating on some amazing products for ridiculous reasons.

iPad Pro is an amazing device, I love it more each day and I still haven't even got my hands on a Pencil. When I get it I expect to explode of joy

I have to admit that for the first time in a while, the iPad pro brings potential to an apple product life cycle that can really spice things up. I just hope apple continues to understand that it's rhe developers that are the main ingredient for success. Right now I have a fantastic piece of hardware, but until the software comes along to utilise it, it's just a big iPad . I like your way of thinking. I'm hoping the iPad pro evolves into a successful product line, but for that to happen we almost need a pro AppStore where software costs a lot more. I dread navigating the current AppStore and actually use google to find apps I might be interested in and just search for them in the AppStore .

 

[Brian Y]

This is one of the reasons I'm holding off of the pro.

Up until now, for me iPads have been what I use to kick around with at home, on the train, etc. Most of the apps I have on there are a few bucks - nothing major, so if I get burned it's not a big deal.

At its price point, I'd be using the iPad pro for work (which, quite frankly, I'd love) but I can't afford to be burned by a $200 app if it turns out to be crappy.

 

[gtmac]

It's a device aimed at consumers. The Pro designation is a bit of a misnomer IMHO.

 

[DarwinOSX]

The Verge are a bunch of narcissistic hipster squabbling children who know nothing about technology.
No way are Pro developers opting out on this. Microsoft didn't and neither is Adobe.

http://www.theverge.com/2015/11/19/9757516/ipad-pro-apps-pricing-ios-developers-opt-out

The problem is the Freemium model, lack of trials, lack of refund policy for consumers, overall lower average price (you spend just as much time/resources developing an app, but have to charge a lot less, thereby forcing you to lower quality) and Apple takes a massive cut.

So what are pro developers gonna do? Opt out.

 

[MacPro2014]

The Verge are a bunch of narcissistic hipster squabbling children who know nothing about technology.
No way are Pro developers opting out on this. Microsoft didn't and neither is Adobe.

I think one of the points out of the discussion is that the apps are somewhat watered down. Adobe supports the platform but you can't run their entire suite of apps. Microsoft on a notebook or desktop is still more extensive (although that is partially due to mouse functions, file systems, etc). Even Apple programs are watered down on the iPad Pro. iMovie may be okay but Final Cut Pro is still OS X. Developers probably will be hesitant to create their best apps for it because of the current store limitations. Will some still develop for it...probably. Will it be comparable to the Mac or Windows...probably not unless the model changes.

 

[xPad]

I'm not going to re-post an argument from a totally unrelated thread, and I've intentionally omitted the rest of your last reply because it was rude and I prefer not repeating anything of that nature.

I only replied at all to remind you where our last "discussion" was since you claimed to not remember it.

Again, nothing but straw men. Now that's rude.

 

[Michael Goff]

And yet I'm still going to get one.

 

[TurboPGT!]

iPad Pro buyers the demographic most likely to spend $$$ on premium Apps. Any sort of resistance to that is foolish.

Notice devs are not saying they can't build their Apps on iOS...they're just afraid to because the cheap business tactics of free trials and paid upgrades are not available.

 

[dyn]

This is a bit more tricky to predict. While there is no chance at all of having OS X on an iPad, there is a slim chance of adding mouse support in iOS.

Indeed but if they do it then I don't think it will be different than what Citrix is currently offering. Just an API to be used in your app so you can use a mouse within the app like we have with the game controllers right now. The biggest advantage of this is having a universal interface and thus a universal experience. A much better approach than when each app manufacturer uses its own mouse integration.

Using the mouse as a way to interact with iOS itself is never going to be possible since this is not along the lines of "the touch screen is a different kind of interface". And right fully so, touch screens require a rather different approach. I personally think you gain more by getting your app to work with the native controls and yes this requires quite some effort.

Notice devs are not saying they can't build their Apps on iOS...they're just afraid to because the cheap business tactics of free trials and paid upgrades are not available.

Devs need to innovate if they want to survive, there is no easy money. If they say they can't build it that probably says more about the dev than about iOS on the iPad Pro.

 

[TurboPGT!]

Devs need to innovate if they want to survive, there is no easy money. If they say they can't build it that probably says more about the dev than about iOS on the iPad Pro.

That's what I'm saying. This article has a misleading title everywhere. People assume it has to do with limitations of iOS for building the Apps in the first place, but that is of course not true and not what this handful of "devs" are complaining about. They are complaining that Apple doesn't encourage the race to the bottom with free trials and paid upgrades and every other worthless business tactic that is only necessary if your software is not great to begin with.

 

[Piggie]

That's what I'm saying. This article has a misleading title everywhere. People assume it has to do with limitations of iOS for building the Apps in the first place, but that is of course not true and not what this handful of "devs" are complaining about. They are complaining that Apple doesn't encourage the race to the bottom with free trials and paid upgrades and every other worthless business tactic that is only necessary if your software is not great to begin with.

If that is so.

Why not put iOS on all Mac computers as well?
Create a new front end (for when it's running on the desktop) and all will be lovely

 

[AdonisSMU]

Verge is garbage now, but the article is mostly correct imo. As others have said, anyone who has being paying attention has known all this for years, it's been repeatedly covered.

why did they just decide to cover it now? Developers have found multiple solutions to this problem already.

 

[driftless]

I think that the Verge article, and it's derivative MSN article, bring up some valid points. What I haven't read in this thread is the effort that Adobe is putting into their mobile apps and how their model is working. Nor have I read about the future enterprise apps that will work well on iOS. I am among those that do not think applying the familiar, but not practical, OS X over everything is not a future forward solution. I think that iPP is the future, in conjunction with Macs, and that Apple will eventually modify it's APP store but that developers will also have to change their entire cash flow model first.

 

[Essenar]

I'm a developer, full time, and unless you are actually a developer, you really have zero justification speculating what we can or cannot make. Don't just blindly throw out sensational statements like, "Developers can make a ton of money with cheap apps" without understanding the business side of it.

Building an app takes time, a lot of time, and developers aren't free. I certainly am not free. I started out as a developer who wanted to build new exciting applications for the App Store. This didn't last long. There's just no money in it.

You might have an idea, but there's no guarantee that idea will actually receive the attention it deserves. And your owners have spent thousands of dollars paying you, UX designers, marketers, graphics designers to build this idea and publish it, only for users to slam it because it's not free or for them to want to pay $2~3 for it.
Do you have any idea how much money $2~3 is, for an application that doesn't sell 10,000+?

Do the math: Your app sells for $3, but no one wants to buy it, they want the free version with ads. So you throw ads in your app. Now it gets bad reviews because people hate ads. But you have a premium version for $3 that people can buy that unlocks features and has no ads. That's an added layer of complexity. A good app will sell 100,000 units at $3. $300,000 doesn't seem bad right? Think again. Apple eats 30%, tax eats another percentage, you spent 10 months working on the app, that's roughly 83% of your salaries for employees. Developers earn an average $75,000 so you just lost around $150,000~$200,000 paying your employees and their benefits to finish this app.

Your wildly successful app (it's very unheard of for no name brands to push 100,000 paid units) lost you money. The free downloads earn you some ad revenue. But overall, you're a tech company that's earning less than a Craigslist landscaping business. Where's the incentive in that? Oh right, it doesn't exist. Time to close up shop and move on.

That's how it is for a LOT of app developers. Apple likes to throw out numbers about apps being in the app store, but they don't bring up the fact that around half of those apps have never been downloaded once.

So where's the money for developers? Not coming out of any of your pockets, folks. Sorry. And that's the truth. Don't believe me? Interview some developers. All those developers earning $80k~$120k for million dollar companies, ask them who their apps are for and I guarantee you, a majority of them make apps for private companies that are used for previously generated users. And other developers work for app development studios. They get contracted from companies who want to build an app for their business. A small portion of developers actually make apps to push to the app store to sell. Definitely not the majority. Private apps are usually what is developed by the majority of full time developers that are earning a decent note per year. These are apps that are free on the app store, but require login credentials. Because the money for those apps doesn't come from app store sales, but rather from private businesses, investors, user bases and marketing. A ride sharing business gets all its revenue from its customers, from investors and tax incentives. It puts an app on the app store, it has to be high quality so they hire developers. A shopping app for a local store that has 50,000 customers in a city you've never known about has millions in revenue and a lot of users. They hire developers to build their ecommerce app. It's free on the app store, but you'll never use it or know about it because it's a local based conglomerate.

That's where the money is.

 

[bushido]

most of you miss the point, its about offering PROFESSIONAL software on an iPad that is obviously targeted to PROFESSIONALS. those professionals may simply not buy the lets say 399$ app cuz theres no way to test it in a full trial beforehand. thats the problem with the current Appstore rules. its not about kids playing 99 cent games on their iPad Mini.

on a sidenote, would it be possible to offer a Mac App with a serial that also works on the iPad app or is such an app prohibited in the appstore. like turn an "free" app that does nothing unless you put in a serial number into a premium app

 

[NT1440]

I
Personally I believe the iPad pro happened , in its current iteration, due to the drop in sales in iPads . Had they continued to be strong , apple would not have launched my iPad pro in my opinion . It's the evolution of the device, trying to attract new users and industries.

I'm not sure how you can make that claim when the development pipeline for many of these technologies (like the timer chip and pencil) have taken years to come through. I've been watching the pencil patents for around 3 years now, had no clue it was going to be for the Pro.

 

[c0nsilience]

As a developer, I have no qualms with the iPad Pro running iOS. The selling points for me were (a) more screen real estate and (b) the Apple Pencil. A "tablet" running OS X has been available for years:

http://store.modbook.com/modbook-pro-osx.html

How many do you think they've sold or how many have you actually seen in real life? I'm not sure the mobile experience part of OS X would be worth being caught dead looking like you ripped someone's flat screen off the wall after you've paid nearly Mac Pro 2013 pricing for the thing. Besides, in it's former and current iterations, I don't think OS X would be a stellar mobile experience, hence iOS.


Likewise, I don't think a tablet makes Windows 8.1 through 10 a better overall experience, but that's just my opinion.