curtis hannah

roundaboutnow said:

An iPad Pro can output 5K?

I don't see a mention of 5K on Apple iPad Pro page. It just says:

"Video mirroring and video out support: Up to 4K through USB-C Digital AV Multiport Adapter and USB-C VGA Multiport Adapter (adapters sold separately)"
 

jdiamond said:

The claim of the article doesn't seem physically possible.  The top speed of USB 3.2 is just 10 gigabits/second - half of what you need for even a 4K image, let alone a 5K one.  And you're not really gonna achieve a full 10 gigabits/second of data over USB 3.2.  Nor can I actually imagine an iPad with USB-C transferring at over a gigabyte/second.  My guess is they just thought it outputted 5K because the monitor supports 5K resolution.  Maybe it can output half resolution - 2,560 x 1,440 or so.

Apple clearly stated the iPads pros supported 5k at the keynote announcement last year, though a compatible monitor did not exist until today.
USB3.2 supports 20 gigabits per seconds, but that doesn’t matter, as it depends on what version of DisplayPort is supported, which if it’s 1.3 or higher, it’s 5k compatible.

The lawsuit is over the fact that old iPhones lost support because they didn't update there software. Are there any complaints of iPhone 4s and 4 owners running iOS 5 losing youtube support? If they want FaceTime so badly, they should upgrade their devices, and not complain that the device lost 10% speed. What about they update to iOS 9.3.6 before the iPhone 4S's lose GPS functionally on November 3rd because their running out of date. Or are they going to complain that Apple is forcing them to update to keep that feature and Apple shouldn't do updates 8 years after the phones came out?

Considering USB C is now 4 years old, this is not good news. The fact that Macs are one of the very few devices still being sold with multiple usb c ports helps make this worse. I guess the best solution is to have a usb A power strip and use a handful of usb A to USB C power cables.

robin huber said:

Mike Wuerthele said:

robin huber said:

A comparison to current iPad Air would be interesting because they seem identical. 

Wednesday.

Thank you. I have request. An article on what path owners of old 27” iMacs can take to upgrade. My wife and I each have these aging Intel models. Because of aging eyes we need the bigger screen. I have been told that a Studio Display with a Mac Mini is the way to go. Two problems there. Nearly double the cost of a 24” all-in-one iMac, and our existing Macs have one terabyte drives that are well over half full and the Mini maxes out at 512GB. Not keen on a desk full of peripherals to do what our old iMacs do with one footprint. What are our options? If we do go the external drive route to accommodate our storage, what will happen when we attempt to set up our new rigs from iCloud back up? Will we get a message saying it can’t be done due to lake of storage? Trying to avoid some kind of catastrophe. Thank you. 

The introduction of an M3 model of the 14 inch is odd, especially since the 15 inch MacBook Air is meant to fill that larger cheap MacBook Price point(and it's still $200 cheaper than the Pro with a larger screen than it), I guess some will really pay that much more for the Mini LED display. Otherwise introducing the M3 processor on 2 products that never even had an M2 chip I guess implies they really are trying to slow the rollout till later into next year. The M3 chip still having 8GB ram base is now even more out of date and ashamed since the M3 Pro is now at multiple of 18GB of ram.

It's nice to see the MacBook Pros received 2 upgrades this year and the legacy 13" is gone, and there is even more options than before both on the high and lower prices side, so it's certainly a nice update.

entropys said:

DangDave said:

There are some good points and some bad points in the above discussions. Apple had a pretty simple decision to make to keep the new iPad (10th Generation) as the inexpensive option. So what was more important to the most users?

1.) Having a USB-C port and providing an adaptor, with all of advantages of USB-C, or
2.) Keeping the Lightning port, just to be able to use the the 1st Generation Apple Pencil. 

Apple made the correct decision. 

You missed a few of the options, which were:

1. Keeping the lightning port, just to be able to use the 1st gen pencil (agree no longer tenable)
2. change to a USBc port, and update iPad to a 2nd gen pencil (best option from a user perspective, but more development work for Apple)
3. change to a USBc port, and release a modified gen1 pencil (called say, gen 1b) with a USBc connector replacing the lighting connector (second best option from a user perspective, and less development work for Apple).
4. change to a USBc port, and forget about any changes to the pencil requirement, so require pencil users to carry an adapter as an embarrassing, clunky kluge. (What happened, with least development work for Apple).

1.It's a joke lightning still exist, it is the right decision, but might hurt those people buying the cheap iPad because they could share the cord with iPhones.
2.Done on the other iPad years ago and should have been done here. There's no way that magnetic wireless charger should cost more than $10 at the factory, on a device with an already price hike.
3.Not sure this option was on the table, the Apple Pencil one is so out of date it seems like it's not worth more development cost, and they'd have to sell three models fragmenting the market even more.
4.Yep, least work for Apple, and there decision. At this point its like going back to when the base models didn't have Apple Pencil support at all, and they came up with this as a backup for people already owning the Apple Pencil.
IMO this adapter should have come out when the 2018 iPad Pros came out providing backward compatibility however cumbersome it was, that way when this change iwas made it'd still be a joke not carrying over gen 2 support with USB C, but not something that felt like it was so forgotten as it was, this means newer iPads still don't have gen 1 support, which is such anti-consumer.

Hasn't Apple already decided to build it in the US? That would make all of those non US extra components less than 20% of the device? Considering the device is $6000 having roughly $250 in tariffs makes no significant difference.

harry wild said:

Between the 14” and 16”, difference is $1K!

$300 when spec’d the same, which is more than the $200 difference in the M2 generation as I recall, but that’s still pretty reasonable.

The key thing here is they introduced the base M3 model which is the same processor that a MacBook Air has, It being added to the MacBook Pro doesn’t affect the price scheme from before starting at the $2000 level.

An irony that is not being mentioned alot is Apple said they only wanted lightning to last 10 years. That comes up next year, and most iPads have already moved onto USB-C. Sure it's possible they'll try to force wireless charging on iPhones, but every Apple device with a lightning port will need to switch soon anyways, and USB C makes more sense on a number of them.

This is the same company which held onto 16gb base storage for way to long, 128gb is still plenty for casual users nowadays. Also keep in mind 

That being said my phone I bought in 2020 phone that came standard as 256GB.