Please, elaborate....WHY???
Apple's iPad business alone is larger than many of the competing tech companies entirely. WHY does Apple need to do this?
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.
Very confused by all the hate in here for iPad Pro
- Thread starter fireguy286
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Apple's iPad business alone is larger than many of the competing tech companies entirely. WHY does Apple need to do this?
My answer to that would be... who needs ARM? All the software worth using is x86. Usual disclaimer: I own and like the original Surface Pro, my opinions may not be representative of humans, etc.
The hybrid device is an interesting concept. An entire ARM system can be smaller than an internal SSD card. Would definitely be more expensive than the Intel system only, but from a technical perspective they should be able to share most of the hardware (battery/display/digitzer/etc) and it really wouldn't add much size/mass to the device. I assume the reason to boot to ARM at all would just be to save battery, because OS X could easily have an "iOS mode" built in where its interface mimics iOS. They clearly started to do this with Launchpad and then didn't follow through. I can't really think of a single piece of software on iOS that I would care about losing, except maybe Procreate
The the idea here is to not innovate, and instead continue down the x86 rabbit hole.
ARM designs are nearly on par with x86 now, with apple making staggering advancements faster than the rest of the industry. You really don't see an A10/A11 chip being more than enough for 90% of computer users?
You're arguing for stagnation.
We really want some half assed OS that wasn't made for touch made "touch-able" in a few weeks? It would be a joke. It would be like the tablets from the early 2000's. I don't see it happening. I don't even think a converging of iOS and OS X would happen at this point. Unfortunately, and believe me I wish this would happen sooner than later, I see them continuing the path they are on. Adding more and more desktop like features to iOS to put it more on par with OS X. Or maybe even breaking up iOS into phoneOS and padOS. There needs to be differentiators and I think that is what people want from an iPad. Desktop like features specific to iOS. iOS, for a phone, is fine the way it is.
How is choosing arm over intel Innovation? Because you think it's good?
All major software and games run off x86, it will cost companies millions upon millions to invest and move their software to arm, for what Bennifit? A small niche that doesn't even represent 10 percent of computers? A loosing battle if I ever saw one.
And for all the glamour about how arm is amazing etc intel chips are also improving, which is why we are now seeing dell devices with 15 hours of battery life running full windows software. Macbook airs with 12 hours of battery life.
Small devices like the surface pro 4 running sophisticated games like skyrim without even a fan (the m3).
I don't think anyone is saying apple just make the switch for OSX In a matter of weeks.
Apple have some amazing software engineers, are you saying they don't have the capability to make a touch enabled OSX, but microsoft can?
Look at the product pipelines of the ARM architecture in the works. To be so close to parity with Intel in such a short time and fulfilling the computing requirements (which admittedly don't go much beyond games, web browsers, and email) for the average consumer isn't innovation?
Mobile is where the new titans of software are rising from (excluding the ridiculous amount of money in the predatory gaming industry), why in the world does the future of computing have to be tied to legacy software that is the norm today?
Hell just look at Adobe, you can bet your ass that the vast majority of their income is going to be in the mobile platform in ten years.
"Skate to where the puck is going, not where I'm tied to a certain architecture because that's all I know today" - Wayne Gretzky
Expect x86 is a big world which caters to many different situations.
Come to me when arm has the power to renders a 1 gig 3d Model in Revit, or can power multiple 4k displays while rendering the 3d model in real time.
The geek bench scores are bull by the way, in favour of arm.
" Patrick Moorhead, a highly respected analyst with a strong background in chips, urges caution, especially when it comes to comparing GeekBench numbers, as many have. "GeekBench is a synthetic, mobile benchmark," Moorhead tells Engadget. "The benchmark code is more like mobile application code than it is desktop code." Using GeekBench to test A9X versus Intel chips is "like comparing apples and oranges or an SUV with a sedan on the straight-away,"
It's innovation, but people act like intel have stood still, yet very clearly they haven't. Their chips are becoming more and more power efficient. While their integrated graphics have vastly improved the last few years.
I was amazed last year my old surface pro 3, such a thin, light weight device, could run Autocad, revit, skyrim etc I wouldn't have dreamed to be able to do that 3 or 4 years ago. While also giving me 7/8 hours of battery life.
And the average consumer should give a flying spaghetti covered **** about this why?
For the record the iPad Pro can edit 3 streams of 4K video at one...on a tablet.
That would mean that iOS apps would run in emulation. Maybe you don't have any iOS apps you'd miss, but a lot of us do.
Yes, Windows 8 was so well received.
Microsoft has been working for over a decade to turn Windows into a mobile and touch-optimized OS, and they are only now just maybe, possibly striking a decent balance with Windows 10. And Office for iPad and Android have been significantly better optimized for touch than Office for Windows Mobile since they were released.
It's not just GeekBench. AnandTech and Ars Technica have run plenty of other benchmarks. I'm looking forward to the full AnandTech review of the iPad Pro. Intel has made progress with x86, but the only chip that has similar power consumption as ARM is the Core M. The chip in your Surface Pro 3 is a 15W chip, the same as the MacBook Air.
I was just responding to the one person in regards to to the timeframe. Can Apple make OS X touch enabled? Absolutely. Should they? Absolutely not. If you are going to do that, I would rather they start from scratch and create a whole new hybrid OS of some sort. I just don't want touch overlaid over OS X with some bigger icons and menus. I don't see that as a forward thinking move for Apple. Windows 10 is a good OS, but it's crap when it comes to touch.
It can edit 3 streams of 4K in the native imovie app as long as that 4K was shot with an iPhone which uses the same dedicated encoding/decoding chip in the iPad Pro.
What I mean by this is that it can edit Apple's 4K. This is the same reason a $300 GoPro type camera can play back it's own 4K video with ease.
Apple has done well optimizing for h:264 (maybe it is 265?) video all around. It's in the chip. Helps with battery life with Netflix, YouTube, etc.
But no professional 4K is shot in that codec. Apple's own white paper for ProRes codecs lists their 150mbps 4K codec as a "proxy" not suitable for rendering to a second generation. The iPhone shoots around 50mbps, or 1/3 the bitrate of a codec that Apple already says is not good enough quality for editing.
Just because something is 4K, that doesn't mean it is high quality. iPhone 6S 4K = 50mbps bitrate. My camera shoots 1080p at 220mbps bitrate using Apple's ProRes HQ codec. So my camera shoots 4x the data for 1/4 the pixels. That's 16x less compression.
The 4K we have on consumer recording devices today is like a 64kbps MP3 from the 90s. It is far too lossy. Even GoPro footage goes through heavy duty noise reduction and texturizing to be used for quick cutaway shots by professionals.
4K is such a buzz word, but it would've been far crazier if Apple would have given the option for 1080p at the 50mbps bitrate used for that 4K video. 50mbps is the bare minimum 1080p shooting bitrate of many broadcast standards. Putting that on an iPhone would make the phone acceptable for broadcast television. I suppose you could cheat and down-rez the 4K to 1080p in post to hit the acceptable standards.
All I was getting at was the device is powerful from a hardware perspective.
Frankly I don't give a damn about 4K.
Version 1 lol. What makes this iPad a version 1 device? The faster specs? The bigger screen? Split screen functionality? Why couldn't these awesome apps from the future be made before for the previous iPads?
Ummm software doesnt work that way... Well at leadt good software doest. Too much legacy hanging around.
Update time.
So here we are, a week later.
Have my views about the iPad pro changed?
Yes and no.
First things first, I stand by my comments that this iPad has an excellent display and speakers, and that the battery life has also exceeded my expectations. However, a week later I have come to the conclusion that this setup is not for me.
Why?
Simply because although I love the size and convenience of it, I can't shake off little things that I have learned to love about my MacBook Pro..
Sadly for me, at this time, I felt I couldn't justify the £1000 price tag with the pencil & keyboard case so have submitted a return.
Maybe it's time to upgrade the MacBook instead..
On to the next product!
So here we are, a week later.
Have my views about the iPad pro changed?
Yes and no.
First things first, I stand by my comments that this iPad has an excellent display and speakers, and that the battery life has also exceeded my expectations. However, a week later I have come to the conclusion that this setup is not for me.
Why?
Simply because although I love the size and convenience of it, I can't shake off little things that I have learned to love about my MacBook Pro..
- Screen angle..I appreciate you can get different cases with different angles but for me, having a MacBook that is flexible to approximately 140 degrees is invaluable when watching a movie in bed for example.
- True multitasking..I want it to be able to do things like having 2 safari windows open side by side..but it can't.
- A faster charger..although I have only had to fully charge it twice this week, it is still far to slow to charge.
Sadly for me, at this time, I felt I couldn't justify the £1000 price tag with the pencil & keyboard case so have submitted a return.
Maybe it's time to upgrade the MacBook instead..
On to the next product!
I'd love that, too. Is there another browser that does split screen, so you could have Safari and the other browser together?
Firefox does it. I think I heard/read somewhere that Chrome does it too, but I don't have Chrome, so I can't check.
If it was a normal iPad just bigger . That new processor is not cheap, 4GB ram, and neither is the screen.
It depends. At 950 for the 128gb lte version it offers what I need which is a big ass iPad and now I do not need to remove my glasses and look close to read. Now I can read comfortably from a distance.
128gb is fine for me since I have my own private cloud. A synology ds415+ which is a great thing to have when you have lots of devices and you can share storage etc.. Cloud apps like spreadsheet etc..
When you're at home, sure. Not so much when your only internet available is cellular and overage costs $15/GB.