Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

TheRealAlex

macrumors 68030
Original poster
Sep 2, 2015
2,938
2,165
very few people need an Mac Studio with 24 Cores or an M2 Ultra or a 64 Core Mac Pro. But a few people do thus the super expensive price and Higher end Specs.

Same with the iPad PRO it should be something above the norm with higher end Specs. I propose and iPad ULTRA. Apple has adopted the “Ultra” brand for the Apple Watch ULTRA and the upcoming iPhone 15 ULTRA. So what should the iPad ULTRA have.


#1. Unique matte black color scheme
#2. high end box
#3. a 3nm M3 Pro chip
#4. An QD-OLED display at 165hz
#5. Maybe Sapphire Glass
#6. A MicroSD card slot
#7. A unique and more responsive Apple Pencil 3.0
#8. 1TB highper speed storage than other iPad Pro’s

if Apple feels a tier can exists above Pro then they need to step up and deliver. I’d say msrp would be at $1,799 11” and $1,999 for a 12.” Version.
 

Arctic Moose

macrumors 68000
Jun 22, 2017
1,576
2,076
Gothenburg, Sweden
something above the norm with higher end Specs

This is the wrong approach.

Higher specs are mostly pointless without first removing the software limitations.

Here’s a thread detailing many of them, and sadly most are still relevant:


Just a few:

  • Xcode
  • VM support
  • Audio routing
  • True multi-window support
  • Support for disk images
  • Terminal (with BSD subsystem access and package manager support)
  • Clipboard manager support
  • Disk Utility
  • Multi-user support
  • Sideloading option

Apple could of course remedy all these by allowing macOS to boot. (This would make the specs discussion interesting. If Apple releases a $3500 iPad where the only difference compared to an iPad Pro is 32 GB RAM and the option to boot macOS I would purchase one the second the buy button goes live.)

#2. high end box

😆
 
Last edited:
  • Love
Reactions: George Dawes

Digitalguy

macrumors 601
Apr 15, 2019
4,541
4,322
very few people need an Mac Studio with 24 Cores or an M2 Ultra or a 64 Core Mac Pro. But a few people do thus the super expensive price and Higher end Specs.

Same with the iPad PRO it should be something above the norm with higher end Specs. I propose and iPad ULTRA. Apple has adopted the “Ultra” brand for the Apple Watch ULTRA and the upcoming iPhone 15 ULTRA. So what should the iPad ULTRA have.


#1. Unique matte black color scheme
#2. high end box
#3. a 3nm M3 Pro chip
#4. An QD-OLED display at 165hz
#5. Maybe Sapphire Glass
#6. A MicroSD card slot
#7. A unique and more responsive Apple Pencil 3.0
#8. 1TB highper speed storage than other iPad Pro’s

if Apple feels a tier can exists above Pro then they need to step up and deliver. I’d say msrp would be at $1,799 11” and $1,999 for a 12.” Version.
You are well known in this forum as a spec junkie, but that's the mistake of those trying to predict the future.
They take current specs and push them to the limits, it's like people 150 years ago wouldn't want cars but faster horses...

Anyway, I think 2 elements would respond to the demand for some ultra iPad, much improved software (or even dual boot with MacOS, but unlikely) and a larger screen device (15-16")
Longer-term, and hardware-wise, some new technologies could come in the form foldable screens (but that's years away in Apple land) and maybe of a dockable iPad into a MacOS Magic Keyboard (usable as as standalone desktop Mac).
 

fatTribble

macrumors 68000
Sep 21, 2018
1,661
4,351
Dayton
I have the original iPad Pro and the first M1 iPad Pro. I love them both! The display has always been the best feature for me. I’ve had the M1 since launch and I still often marvel at how good pictures and videos look. Faster processors and screen improvements are always a good thing, but I’m extremely happy with what I’ve got. A new color or fancy box wouldn’t do anything for me. I doubt I’d use any of the other features you suggest, but I’m sure there are those who would.
 

Slartibart

macrumors 68040
Aug 19, 2020
3,020
2,728
Support a full fledged Office software. Not just the watered down version.
That’s up to the developer of the software, isn’t it? In any case: Collabora Office seems to be the full fledged Libre Office (actually more AFAIK).
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nhwhazup

unrigestered

Suspended
Jun 17, 2022
879
840
for me it's deficits are in the software, here's what comes to mind what i'd i'd really like to see improved:

1. option to unmount attached volumes without having to fear that you will break files while unplugging them

2. "free" (still locked to some grid) icon placement on the home screen instead of having no other option than having a long continuous string across all rows.
if i want just one app in the top row, three in the second, and two in the third, so be it

3. more consistency with the ability to choose "all files" in all native apps, not just in some, but not in others

4. there is no reason why the iPhone can have a swipe keyboard, while the iPad can't

5. cursor placement could be improved as i think it has been done way better since forever even in some ancient Android 1.x versions
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,944
22,824
Singapore
Apps. Somewhere along the line, developers stopped making desktop class software for the iPad (just look at the state of zoom or google drive) and it seems like not even catalyst is adequately addressing this issue.
 

sparksd

macrumors G3
Jun 7, 2015
9,556
31,064
Seattle WA
Apps. Somewhere along the line, developers stopped making desktop class software for the iPad (just look at the state of zoom or google drive) and it seems like not even catalyst is adequately addressing this issue.

I've often wondered if it's a matter of the big developers not seeing an adequate ROI for the effort involved. Just look at the complaints about paying $4.99 for a decent app. How big is the market for pricier apps on the iPad?
 

Abazigal

Contributor
Jul 18, 2011
19,944
22,824
Singapore
I've often wondered if it's a matter of the big developers not seeing an adequate ROI for the effort involved. Just look at the complaints about paying $4.99 for a decent app. How big is the market for pricier apps on the iPad?
A lot of the limitations surrounding the iPad seems like software, but I am not convinced that going macOS is the answer. I like the idea of iOS being a true productivity platform on its own terms without being too much like a conventional PC, but I also have no idea of how to get there.

For example, people want sideloading, but the apps still have to exist for the iPad first, and they still have to be financially viable. As it stands now, it's just emulators and torrents.

We have stage manager (basically Apple's take on Dex), but just how many people are hooking their iPads up to external displays?

It has an M1 chip, so specs isn't the bottleneck. Maybe like you said, people are just too conditioned to cheap apps on iOS and aren't willing to pay hundreds of dollars for productivity software the same way they would on a PC. We used to have lumafusion standing toe to toe with FCP on the Mac and running rings around Premiere, but Macs have more powerful chips now, and lumafusion seems to have stagnated in terms of development. There's procreate for artists, I am still happily using notability in the classroom, but that pretty much seems about it.

iOS 17 will bring us interactive widgets and improved lock screen (perhaps hinting at a future iPad with always-on display?), but nothing that really changes the way I work on my iPad.

Perhaps the issue was that the iPad was never meant to be more than this device that sat in between an iPhone and a laptop. Maybe the "pro" label was always about justifying the price of more premium build quality and costly accessories and Apple has now marketed themselves into a corner?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose

Shirasaki

macrumors P6
May 16, 2015
15,896
11,273
Apple marketing team seems to give zero Crap about how misleading “pro” moniker is. But that’s not even the issue. User base has been finding ways to extract what iPad Pro can do, myself included. Conclusion? Professional iPhone And some extra gimmick. There’s nothing much that really sets ipad apart from iPhone bars screen size, unable to make phone calls (no, google hangout and alike does not count) and send text messages, and ability To use Apple Pencil.

iPadOS is so limited, I find myself using iPad more as a professional Mobile gaming machine and light productivity more than anything else. Yes, there are iPadOS version of AutoCAD, but not sufficient enough. Will Apple find out what ipad truly is? I dont know, and frankly it doesnt really matter once you stop thinking about it.

As for specs, that should never be used to determine whether a device is for Pro or not.
 

supergt

macrumors 6502a
Feb 22, 2019
642
1,582
The iPad Pro has been over spec‘d for years. Yes the screen, camera, and body are due for upgrades. So what? The 9th gen iPad can deliver 90ish percent of the iPad Pro experience for a fraction of the cost. That’s the fundamental problem. Apple has to simultaneously do the bare minimum to make the iPad Pro attractive while not cannibalizing their laptop sales. As such you’re going to see very little in the way of iPad OS improvement year after year.
 

ofarlig

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2015
891
1,092
Sweden
We have stage manager (basically Apple's take on Dex), but just how many people are hooking their iPads up to external displays?

More people would use it if the feature wasn't awful and just a showing of how lax Apple have gotten in showing out poor features lately. It has taken up until iOS 17 to even get the bare minimum features of using the iPad docked and the experience is still feeling like a beta.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Arctic Moose

Slartibart

macrumors 68040
Aug 19, 2020
3,020
2,728
It has taken up until iOS 17 to even get the bare minimum features of using the iPad docked and the experience is still feeling like a beta.
While I agree, the harsh reality is iPadOS 17 currently IS beta. 😁
 

ofarlig

macrumors 6502a
Jun 23, 2015
891
1,092
Sweden
While I agree, the harsh reality is iPadOS 17 currently IS beta. 😁

Well the feature was introduces in iPadOS 16, so it has taken them until the iPadOS 17 beta to make it seem like a beta product instead of a proof of concept buggy alpha like it did before. That is poor even for the modern Apple that doesn't polish things before release anymore.
 

Isamilis

macrumors 68020
Apr 3, 2012
2,119
1,022
That’s up to the developer of the software, isn’t it? In any case: Collabora Office seems to be the full fledged Libre Office (actually more AFAIK).
It’s from both sides. Apple should provide comprehensive library before developer can utilize that. In general, very few Pro software for iPad out there (not only Office) which indicate the iPadOS dev library is insufficient for developer to build pro software.
 

Pakaku

macrumors 68040
Aug 29, 2009
3,200
4,604
#7. A unique and more responsive Apple Pencil 3.0
My pencil is perfectly responsive, I don’t know what problems you’re having.

As for actual pro features, well… it’s ironic that you can’t even code and compile iPad apps on an iPad
 

Username-already-in-use

macrumors 6502a
May 18, 2021
562
1,037
No developer who gets paid for development actually wants Xcode on the iPad nor wants to use any native IDE on the iPad.

Now way is the vast ecosystem of third party packages and libraries, going to rewritten just for iPadOS, no one is going to do this work. The reality of software development is that you can do very little from just building something ‘out of the box’ within an IDE.

Whenever a new iPad Pro comes out and YT content creators bemoan ”the lack of Xcode”, I laugh because they don’t honestly know what they are talking about.
 
  • Angry
Reactions: dominiongamma

Arctic Moose

macrumors 68000
Jun 22, 2017
1,576
2,076
Gothenburg, Sweden
Now way is the vast ecosystem of third party packages and libraries, going to rewritten just for iPadOS, no one is going to do this work.

While probably true, it doesn’t need to be Xcode as it exists on the Mac. I don’t think the option to develop iPad apps on a device called iPad Pro is too much to ask.

Besides, as I stated, my proposed solution is to allow dual-booting macOS, which would solve every single problem. (At least compared to for example a M2 MacBook Air.)

As for actual pro features, well… it’s ironic that you can’t even code and compile iPad apps on an iPad


😆
 

AlexESP

macrumors 6502a
Sep 7, 2014
683
1,830
I don’t think it makes sense to evaluate the ”Pro” moniker in a quantitative way. That said, I assume the question is “how to make it significantly better than the other models”. I think most people in this forum really struggle to think out of the box… transforming the iPad into something it’s not would be a failure (i.e. making it bigger by including slots and ports, using a OS which is not designed for touch from scratch, etc.). On paper, everyone on this forum would use their iPad with macOS to develop, push changes, edit 3D models, etc. On reality, we have huge historic log that proves that just slapping computer features into a tablet is a terrible idea.

The iPad needs to evolve in the iPad path, with things like Pencil hover, LiDAR etc., basically use cases where the iPad can excel compared to a Mac. People often argue “you could get a MacBook Air for even $200 less, and it can do more!”. You know what? I don’t want a Mac, I want an iPad! I could also get a PC for $500 that does more than my $1200 iPhone. They’re just different products, even if there’s always some overlapping.

In my case, I have a MBP and an iPad Pro. I would never consider them competing with each other when thinking about upgrading. If Apple wants to upsell me a potential iPad Ultra, I don’t want Mac-like Xcode, cmd or clunky windows; I want new iPad-like features. Of course, it’s way harder to work on this, and requires some more deep and creative thinking than slapping macOS with an adapted UI. But I think Apple understands this better than the tech press and forums bubble, and that’s why they succeed in the tablet market like no other company.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dominiongamma

Arctic Moose

macrumors 68000
Jun 22, 2017
1,576
2,076
Gothenburg, Sweden
I think most people in this forum really struggle to think out of the box… transforming the iPad into something it’s not would be a failure (i.e. making it bigger by including slots and ports, using a OS which is not designed for touch from scratch, etc.). On paper, everyone on this forum would use their iPad with macOS to develop, push changes, edit 3D models, etc.
Of course you'd use a keyboard and trackpad/mouse for macOS on iPad, not touch.

Please explain why this (hypothetical at this point) device (assuming it is available with the option of sufficient RAM) wouldn't be fully capable of running macOS without any modifications at all:


Benefits:

  • First macOS-capable device with cellular
  • First macOS-capable device that can be comfortably used in a cramped airplane seat (although the 11" MacBook Air and 2015 MacBook both came close, the 11" iPad Pro shaves another centimeter off the depth, and a detachable keyboard is a massive improvement)
  • Option to dual boot iPadOS (or run macOS virtualized in iPadOS) means carrying one device, not two
  • The iPad instantly receives all the capabilities it has been lacking

I cannot see any drawbacks at all beyond some added complexity and product line confusion. However, if the iPad Air starts at $599 and the iPad Pro with more RAM and dual boot (or virtualization) option starts at $1499, it should be quite clear who should buy which device, which is definitely not the case as the iPad product line stands today.

I would be content with a 10" or 11" MacBook with cellular and preferably a keyboard that can be folded back or detached, but if you get that, why not have iPad capabilities as well? The only difference for me would be that I would not need to also lug an iPad around.

As a sidenote, I am still surprised Apple did not take the opportunity presented by the switch to Apple Silicon to show off what it is capable of by creating the tiny macOS device they've always strived for (as demonstrated by the 12" PowerBook G4, 11" MacBook Air and 2015 MacBook) but never been able to achieve due to the power/performance limitations.
 
Last edited:

ilikewhey

macrumors 68040
May 14, 2014
3,595
4,642
nyc upper east
very few people need an Mac Studio with 24 Cores or an M2 Ultra or a 64 Core Mac Pro. But a few people do thus the super expensive price and Higher end Specs.

Same with the iPad PRO it should be something above the norm with higher end Specs. I propose and iPad ULTRA. Apple has adopted the “Ultra” brand for the Apple Watch ULTRA and the upcoming iPhone 15 ULTRA. So what should the iPad ULTRA have.


#1. Unique matte black color scheme
#2. high end box
#3. a 3nm M3 Pro chip
#4. An QD-OLED display at 165hz
#5. Maybe Sapphire Glass
#6. A MicroSD card slot
#7. A unique and more responsive Apple Pencil 3.0
#8. 1TB highper speed storage than other iPad Pro’s

if Apple feels a tier can exists above Pro then they need to step up and deliver. I’d say msrp would be at $1,799 11” and $1,999 for a 12.” Version.
the software is not there to demand such price tag, as long as apple keeps ipados closed off and offer no where near the functionality of the macs, hardly anyone would be interested no matter what premium hardware features apple shove in there.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.