Students don't choose Chromebooks. IT managers do. Cheap is the head here. The same thing we see with Android.
Did you hear about IBM? As soon as they asked their workforce what computer they want 50 to 75% said to be considering a Macbook. I believe that the same is happening with Chromebooks. Student just don't get the decision.
I'm going to disagree and say NOT CHEAP. The point made with the IBM decision is that Macs require much less upkeep than PC's. As a Mac user I've known this for ages. Likewise as I mentioned above, my children choose PC laptops but still have the occasional issue with Windows. Thus I don't see them as beholden to purchasing a Windows PC in the future if an alternative exists that could give them what they want. However these Chromebooks are being deployed on a huge scale and with almost zero tech support and the students and staff are using them just fine. I'd be shocked if the costs to support them are not the same as Macs if not lower. I say this as a Mac user, I've been very impressed by them. They are darn near bulletproof. Schools are notoriously short on IT staff and I've watched 100's of these Chromebooks be rolled out with no real issues at my site. With my sons it is a high school with well over 2500 students. The numbers in terms of IT costs have to be very good for this to have worked.
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
That CPU is an heavily constrains and has no turbo or throttle! That means the headroom in a more ventilated space with better heatsink and a performance process would be huge. There is no doubt that OSX on a AX chip is coming. Even their Cheapest desktop could well be converted.
I'm going to disagree and say NOT CHEAP. The point made with the IBM decision is that Macs require much less upkeep than PC's. As a Mac user I've known this for ages. Likewise as I mentioned above, my children choose PC laptops but still have the occasional issue with Windows. Thus I don't see them as beholden to purchasing a Windows PC in the future if an alternative exists that could give them what they want. However these Chromebooks are being deployed on a huge scale and with almost zero tech support and the students and staff are using them just fine. I'd be shocked if the costs to support them are not the same as Macs if not lower. I say this as a Mac user, I've been very impressed by them. They are darn near bulletproof. Schools are notoriously short on IT staff and I've watched 100's of these Chromebooks be rolled out with no real issues at my site. With my sons it is a high school with well over 2500 students. The numbers in terms of IT costs have to be very good for this to have worked.
The problem with Chromebooks is that it's all web apps at this point. So either you go with free, ad-supported, data-harvesting apps of questionable quality. Or you buy a subscription to higher quality web app access which gets costly over time and also means you can't get at your apps if your internet connection isn't working well.
Not to mention login hassles and complication just to run an app. When it works, it's fine -- but when something goes wrong, there are a lot of moving parts at play. Am I entering the wrong password? Is it a problem with the web server? Is there a problem with the computer? This is where the deferred support headache is for Chromebooks: setup is easy because there's no application software and drivers to install and maintain, but making sure your internet connection is working and accessible from everywhere, and hoping that the servers required to access your web apps and data are up and running all the time (and recognizing when they're not) is the headache. You've essentially traded drivers & software maintenance for network infrastructure maintenance.
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
None of that is correct. Geekbench is not a reliable source for comparing across ISA's and GFXBench is testing in FP32 on Windows and FP16 on iOS.
That's like saying Car A goes from 0-60 in 3 seconds, while Car B goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, so Car A is faster. What's not being said is Car A is going from 0-60 kilometers per hour, while Car B is going from 0-60 miles per hour.
I'm going to disagree and say NOT CHEAP. The point made with the IBM decision is that Macs require much less upkeep than PC's. As a Mac user I've known this for ages. Likewise as I mentioned above, my children choose PC laptops but still have the occasional issue with Windows. Thus I don't see them as beholden to purchasing a Windows PC in the future if an alternative exists that could give them what they want. However these Chromebooks are being deployed on a huge scale and with almost zero tech support and the students and staff are using them just fine. I'd be shocked if the costs to support them are not the same as Macs if not lower. I say this as a Mac user, I've been very impressed by them. They are darn near bulletproof. Schools are notoriously short on IT staff and I've watched 100's of these Chromebooks be rolled out with no real issues at my site. With my sons it is a high school with well over 2500 students. The numbers in terms of IT costs have to be very good for this to have worked.
The problem with Chromebooks is that it's all web apps at this point. So either you go with free, ad-supported, data-harvesting apps of questionable quality. Or you buy a subscription to higher quality web app access which gets costly over time and also means you can't get at your apps if your internet connection isn't working well.
Not to mention login hassles and complication just to run an app. When it works, it's fine -- but when something goes wrong, there are a lot of moving parts at play. Am I entering the wrong password? Is it a problem with the web server? Is there a problem with the computer? This is where the deferred support headache is for Chromebooks: setup is easy because there's no application software and drivers to install and maintain, but making sure your internet connection is working and accessible from everywhere, and hoping that the servers required to access your web apps and data are up and running all the time (and recognizing when they're not) is the headache. You've essentially traded drivers & software maintenance for network infrastructure maintenance.
It is web apps but like most things these days, WIFI is ubiquitous.
The second part seems absurd. How many steps do you think Apple requires for you to sign into your iCloud, your iTunes store, Apple Music, etc. This was recently illustrated in an article I saw that had the number of steps at around 60 from what I recall. I don't see any computer out there that would be immune from wondering if the mail server is down, etc. As for name and password, Google has been smart there with Chrome storing passwords not only for websites but between all machines on which you are signed into Chrome. They make it very easy.
Now some of the problems you mention are real. I mentioned how the kids are basically taking the same hardware and bypassing the limitations of ChromeOS using Linux. However Google themselves have said that they are basically bringing Android apps to Chrome as well. Apple won't be standing still of course. In the meantime when we want to know why iPad is flagging, it has been outsold by Chrombooks to schools and Chromebooks are shipping more units than even windows laptops.
That doesn't mean Chromebooks are perfect. Most people don't consider iPad's perfect when compared to a laptop and this is true even with the iPad Pro. All companies are going to be advancing their products for consumers in the future but iPad sale right now are not dominating in part because of Chromebooks. The article that inspired this thread examines both Windows laptops/Surface tablets and Android tablets. It leaves out Chromebooks. The answer is Chromebooks.
It is web apps but like most things these days, WIFI is ubiquitous.
In my experience with WiFi in public places where many people are using it (and it's not being paid for), it's quite flakey and problematic.
Quote:
The second part seems absurd. How many steps do you think Apple requires for you to sign into your iCloud, your iTunes store, Apple Music, etc. This was recently illustrated in an article I saw that had the number of steps at around 60 from what I recall. I don't see any computer out there that would be immune from wondering if the mail server is down, etc. As for name and password, Google has been smart there with Chrome storing passwords not only for websites but between all machines on which you are signed into Chrome. They make it very easy.
I'm talking about bona-fide native applications which aren't tied to a network login of any kind (which are becoming more rare by the day, I realize). Like Microsoft Office prior to Office365, or Adobe Creative Suite prior to the cloud version. You simply launch the app and go -- no login, no cloud, no ideal network connection required.
And yes, I have iCloud keychain which remembers all my passwords and logs me in (same as the system used on Chromebooks), which works fine most of the time. However, there are times when the iCloud servers are down and all the auto-logins in the world aren't going to make a difference if the server itself can't feed you the actual application. I've worked on web applications which rely on Google web APIs, and the servers for those APIs go down once a week or so (and boy do people complain when it happens).
I've also had a ton of problems with my various Microsoft accounts randomly not working (and I can't use MS Visual Studio or MS Office). It's really confusing trying to figure out what the problem is when it happens. I see this happen in schools a lot as well. I'm not sure what perfect networking world you live in, but my experience has been anything but perfect.
Now some of the problems you mention are real. I mentioned how the kids are basically taking the same hardware and bypassing the limitations of ChromeOS using Linux. However Google themselves have said that they are basically bringing Android apps to Chrome as well.
Yes, I read that.
This will essentially create the same situation as MS Surface where you have apps that were written for a touch-based input device being run on a mouse + keyboard based device (laptop). And so it'll suffer the same problems where things are often frustrating to use because they don't fit the interaction model.
People will typically suffer though this in order to get apps cheaper or for free, but how much lost productivity is there when you have to adapt your work style to compensate for apps which simply weren't designed for your hardware? It's amazing how much people will put themselves through just to get a free app. This might fly in classrooms where budget restrictions outweigh time restrictions. But in a workplace where labour costs (based on time) are paramount, wasted time fiddling with substandard apps doesn't fly (assuming you have managers who are aware enough to understand this problem).
As someone who works in software and tried to pitch making fully functional iOS versions of desktop apps, I can say you are bang on here. The vast majority of apps are designed to be one-hit wonders because there's very little money to be made after that initial sale (if you're a paid app).
In-app purchase models are great for funding games, but don't work well for major desktop apps like word processors and other content creation tools. People want to buy the full featured app and not have to buy add-ons. However, once you've sold that full featured app to them, there's no way to fund upgrades year after year unless you create a whole new app each year. Which doesn't sit well with people who already paid for the same app last year. The only other business model is the paid subscription model (ala Adobe), which sucks because customers lose access to their apps if they don't pay their subscription.
IMO, this is probably the number 1 issue that Apple "could address" to improve iPad sales - improve the app ecosystem so that some truly great & "different from PC" applications are developed. Applications which make use of the portable nature & larger screen to do new workflows and functions that a keyboard + mouse isn't as good at. While there are a plethora of apps available for iOS, and iPad specifically, most of them are relatively simple apps.
I first read about this over at Ben Thompson's blog on Stratechery. Apple has been very cautious & conservative with the App Store and the applications which have been developed. Perhaps due to history where they saw premium & popular applications (like from MS and Adobe) become more popular than the platform at the time (90s & early 2000s), and felt like a loss of control. However, given where Apple has now taken "iOS & OSX as a platform", they should be able to give developers more incentives without threat to the application becoming bigger than the ecosystem.
Specific areas where Apple could further empower application developers, providing incentives for better apps, and further entrench Apple's position (all without any real downside IMO):
- Trial period for all purchases (e.g. 15 days usage prior to payment). This would enable apps with superior features to charge more as the improvements can be determined without risk.
- Allow charging for major upgrades. Perhaps some guidelines that you can't have chargeable upgrades any more frequently than once-per-year. Also rules that App can't stop working without the upgrade - upgrade provides more features.
- Easy mechanism for users to provide feedback to developers through the App Store (not just reviews). Also ability for app developers to respond to negative reviews. Allow some communication on upcoming improvements to Apps (upgrades).
- Consider changing the App Store revenue share for subscription services (towards the rumoured 15% that HBO Now or Netflix get).
For those that might bring up the IBM deal, I believe that is a different beast. IBM is building apps which are front-ends for their service offerings. It is a great approach for both Apple and IBM, and deliver value to the enterprise customers, but it is not addressing the broader market.
Apple has the most important platform now with the high end of mobile and traditional computing, spread across 3 device categories (smartphone, tablet, laptop/desktop) and extending into wearables. I think they can do more to extract value from it, and entrench it further.
None of that is correct. Geekbench is not a reliable source for comparing across ISA's and GFXBench is testing in FP32 on Windows and FP16 on iOS.
That's like saying Car A goes from 0-60 in 3 seconds, while Car B goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, so Car A is faster. What's not being said is Car A is going from 0-60 kilometers per hour, while Car B is going from 0-60 miles per hour.
So again, that's simply not true.
you keep saying it isn't true without having any data to back it up with.
From the software company side of things, the subscription model definitely makes the most sense to continue to fund development. The fact that software will stop working forces users to continue paying for development.
However, from the perspective of a user, it leaves a bad taste to pay for something and not truly "own" it the same way you would with a piece of hardware. I mean, imagine if you paid for a Mac/iPad/iPhone and after a year, it just stopped working unless you paid again?
I prefer making it so that the user can pay once and continue using as long as they want. However, to get access to new features/bugfixes/support for newer operating systems, they'll need to pay for the new version. With their initial purchase, they'll get a couple of bugfix/point releases, but no major upgrade releases.
Sure you'll get a number of cheapskates who just keep using that one version they paid for. However, with enough added features and potentially having software not work (or work well) when someone updates their OS, I think you'll get enough people paying for an upgrade to fund development. It's also more "honest" in the sense that, if you add features users aren't interested in, they won't pay. Whereas, if you force a subscription on them, they have to pay to continue using the basic features even if they aren't interested in the particular directions you're taking an app with new features.
The problem with the App Store is that you can only charge for the app purchase and in-app content. You can't charge for an update. Which means that, to make the model I prefer work, you need to release different versions of the app. That makes it a bit of a pain for users to move data to new versions.
I believe this is part of the reason why you don't see larger apps which may take 3, 4, 5 years or more to fully be developed (like most major content creation desktop apps/suites) on the App Store.
I don't agree witth this in theory. I don't think most users care if they "own" the app or not. They just care they can do what they need to with the app. That's all they should care about honestly. I don't think you will get people to pay for an upgrade if what they have works fine. I also think the old model of software sales where you buy a product and use it until it drops is that users don't get the best experience possible. Subscriptions are the future of software development much like music. There is a reason why music streaming is taking off and subscription model for apps is the same business model applied to software.
I don't agree witth this in theory. I don't think most users care if they "own" the app or not. They just care they can do what they need to with the app. That's all they should care about honestly. I don't think you will get people to pay for an upgrade if what they have works fine. I also think the old model of software sales where you buy a product and use it until it drops is that users don't get the best experience possible. Subscriptions are the future of software development much like music. There is a reason why music streaming is taking off and subscription model for apps is the same business model applied to software.
This model does work best for software development houses for sure because you have a pretty much guaranteed/predictable revenue stream. However, all you need to do is go on forums with end users of Adobe CS to see how much customers actually like it. For some people it works (contractors who can bill the cost to customers, design shops who can license for a large group, and similar). For others who are paying out of their own pocket and need to use over a long period of time (learning, personal projects, etc), it doesn't.
The situation is similar to the "lease or own" model for cars. For those who can expense a car for business, the leasing model makes sense. For those buying a car for personal use and want to keep it for use over 10-15 years, it doesn't. It's good to have both options.
iPad sales are down because the iPhone 6/6s plus cannibalized the low end (iPad mini), and because the replacement cycle on iPads is really long - probably as long as the Mac cycle.
iPads right now are "appliances". Since they are really not an important device as far as real productivity is concerned, the iPad you bought today will basically function (as a consumption device) like it did on day one for the next 10 years. Without significant new functionality, there's little incentive to upgrade.
I state this opinion from my own experience. I have an iPhone 4s, which I will replace with an iPhone 6s this year, and then hand the 4s down to the kids as an "iPod". The family iPad will remain untouched this year, because Apple failed to introduce a new iPad Air 3, meaning there is no significant incentive at all to replace our current iPad.
The iPad Pro looks really nifty, but it really doesn't fit the bill for what we use the iPad for. The iPad Air is perfect for our needs, and so I continue to wait for Apple to update it. The next purchase right after a new iPhone will be a new MacBook Pro, cause it's time to upgrade our real productivity tool.
Now some of the problems you mention are real. I mentioned how the kids are basically taking the same hardware and bypassing the limitations of ChromeOS using Linux. However Google themselves have said that they are basically bringing Android apps to Chrome as well.
Yes, I read that.
This will essentially create the same situation as MS Surface where you have apps that were written for a touch-based input device being run on a mouse + keyboard based device (laptop). And so it'll suffer the same problems where things are often frustrating to use because they don't fit the interaction model.
People will typically suffer though this in order to get apps cheaper or for free, but how much lost productivity is there when you have to adapt your work style to compensate for apps which simply weren't designed for your hardware? It's amazing how much people will put themselves through just to get a free app. This might fly in classrooms where budget restrictions outweigh time restrictions. But in a workplace where labour costs (based on time) are paramount, wasted time fiddling with substandard apps doesn't fly (assuming you have managers who are aware enough to understand this problem).
You may well be right. I simply shared what is slowing iPad sales and wasn't accounted for in the article. I'm not saying it is the perfect solution now nor that it will be the perfect solution in the future. As an example some Android phone companies managed to do decently when Apple was locked into the 4 inch form factor. Now that Apple has moved to larger factors, those companies are not doing as well.
Chromebooks are doing well in an area that Apple doesn't care to go. It is a $250-300 per unit solution with an integrated mouse and trackpad. It allows use with multiple logins and can easily be centrally managed. It doesn't have a hard drive which allows lot of battery life, and does allow use of thumbdrives and MicroSD cards. If Apple goes there I have no doubt their solution will be better than current providers. However Apple isn't going there for now.
iPad has very long upgrade cycle. Without contracts, people OWN these devices, and they are not as easy to trade in as a phone (size).
Does the tech industry run articles about people's upgrade cycles on PCs/Macs/Televisions?
iPad penetrated strong, and stays strong with the people that don't yet have one. I see people with iPad 2 just beginning to think about an upgrade. It is not mystery.
Totally agreed. I think there are three issues:
a) Most iPad users use the iPad for consumption, not creation (in spite of the beautiful iPad TV ads). Because of that and because the original iPad was of such quality design (although a bit heavy), there's no need to upgrade within a short timeframe. Personally, I'm still using a late-2008 MacBook Pro and with the possible exception of intensive tight video editing, it's still fine for everything else I do, including photo post-processing in Photoshop. I think the iPad is similar in that regard.
b) eBook usage has not met expectations in the industry. I think the industry expected most people to move to eBooks in the same growth pattern as people have moved to digital media for music, but that has never happened.
c) If you have a computer (presumably a Mac) and you have a smartphone, especially a smartphone with a large screen, you don't really need an iPad.
I haven't yet seen the iPad Pro in person, but I think it's Apple's attempt to create a new category for those people who don't think they need a computer. Since Mac sales are a relatively tiny part of Apple's overall income, this is a way around that.
Quote:
Originally posted by: Article
Windows has never been less important as a platform than it is today
That's true only from the standpoint that with phones and Pads, fewer people are using their computers as much as they had in the past. But I still think any survey of PCs in use will show that 95% or more are Windows. And certainly in Enterprise, almost all are Windows. So in terms of usage, Windows is still a very important platform. In terms of driving technology forward, maybe not.
I am a big fan of Amazon's Fire TV. But, my new Apple TV has relegated my main Fire TV to Prime use. There is not one app that reliably enables AirPlay on the Fire TV though some work under certain conditions. Even using an Amazon tablet to cast to a Fire TV is a pain. These are minor issues though. The ATV app store is on a path to put the Amazon one to shame and it will only accelerate. Th AFTV does have Kodi via an unofficial install but Plex on the ATV is better in my opinion. I prefer Alexander on my Echo to Siri but Siri on the ATV does index Hulu, Netflix and iTunes. The non-ad Hulu+Netflix compares favourably with Prime+Netflix.
I would recommend a Fire TV without hesitation but I think the ATV has a more exciting future. Both platforms are very good but the App Store will make the difference.
Note that I do not have a 2nd gen Fire TV so I don't know if that would change my views. I am not a gamer and don't care about 4K video. Of course the Fire stick is far less expensive and has that going for it. But then Chromecast is even less expensive:)
you keep saying it isn't true without having any data to back it up with.
Data? The results for Windows devices in GFXBench and 3DMark are high (full) precision, the iPad Pro scores are not (source). It's very simple to understand that these are not equal benchmarks for Windows and iOS.
Looking at something like 3DMark (running in full precision on Windows):
Data? The results for Windows devices in GFXBench and 3DMark are high (full) precision, the iPad Pro scores are not (source). It's very simple to understand that these are not equal benchmarks for Windows and iOS.
Looking at something like 3DMark (running in full precision on Windows):
Surface Pro 4 (Core i5*) [FP32]:
Fire Strike - 857
Cloud Gate - 5984
?Ice Storm - 61482
Surface Pro 4 (Core m3*) [FP32]:
Fire Strike - 740
Cloud Gate - 4604
?Ice Storm - 42046
iPad Pro (A9X) [FP16]:
Fire Strike - N/A
Cloud Gate - N/A
?Ice Storm - 33540
*Results do not include Intel Speed-Shift.
What Anandtech actually said was that graphics benchmarks on Windows are forced to run in high precision "only due to limitations in OpenGL versus OpenGL ES," while mobile platforms can use OpenGL ES. That, of course, also ignores that Apple's core graphics (and new apps) are increasingly using Metal, not OpenGL ES.
However, the only comparison numbers you cited were IceStorm, which is well known to incorporate physics tests that use a software library optimized for Android and Windows but which is neither used on nor optimized for iOS. It's a shibboleth test trotted out by Apple haters (See phony benchmarks).
So if you want to demand that benchmarks reflect reality, its pretty hypocritical to also base your argument on Future Mark 3DMark Ice Storm.
What Anandtech actually said was that graphics benchmarks on Windows are forced to run in high precision "only due to limitations in OpenGL versus OpenGL ES," while mobile platforms can use OpenGL ES. That, of course, also ignores that Apple's core graphics (and new apps) are increasingly using Metal, not OpenGL ES.
However, the only comparison numbers you cited were IceStorm, which is well known to incorporate physics tests that use a software library optimized for Android and Windows but which is neither used on nor optimized for iOS. It's a shibboleth test trotted out by Apple haters (See phony benchmarks).
So if you want to demand that benchmarks reflect reality, its pretty hypocritical to also base your argument on Future Mark 3DMark Ice Storm.
Daniel, I don't base my argument on that as it's not even running in FP32 on iOS. I'm making a point to the other user that these benchmarks are not equal. Ice Storm is also an OpenGL ES 2.0 or DirectX 9_3 test, so when you bring up Metal, the same could be said regarding the Surface's hardware which is already enabled for DirectX 12. Cloud Gate tests DirectX 10 and Fire Strike tests DirectX 11, neither are on iOS.
Regarding Ice Storm's physics tests, go argue with FutureMark if you think they need to improve their product. As for other benchmarks, GFXBench 3.0 is another mobile benchmark using OpenGL ES 3.0. Their newest GFXBench 4.0 isn't even supported on the A8/A8X or prior, and it might not even be supported on the A9/A9X depending on the optional add-ons Apple is using with the PowerVR 7XT GPU.
Comments
I suspect the majority would choose Chromebooks.
Students don't choose Chromebooks. IT managers do. Cheap is the head here. The same thing we see with Android.
Did you hear about IBM? As soon as they asked their workforce what computer they want 50 to 75% said to be considering a Macbook. I believe that the same is happening with Chromebooks. Student just don't get the decision.
I'm going to disagree and say NOT CHEAP. The point made with the IBM decision is that Macs require much less upkeep than PC's. As a Mac user I've known this for ages. Likewise as I mentioned above, my children choose PC laptops but still have the occasional issue with Windows. Thus I don't see them as beholden to purchasing a Windows PC in the future if an alternative exists that could give them what they want. However these Chromebooks are being deployed on a huge scale and with almost zero tech support and the students and staff are using them just fine. I'd be shocked if the costs to support them are not the same as Macs if not lower. I say this as a Mac user, I've been very impressed by them. They are darn near bulletproof. Schools are notoriously short on IT staff and I've watched 100's of these Chromebooks be rolled out with no real issues at my site. With my sons it is a high school with well over 2500 students. The numbers in terms of IT costs have to be very good for this to have worked.
Wrong.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/11/ipad-pro-review-mac-like-speed-with-all-the-virtues-and-limitations-of-ios/4/#h2
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
That CPU is an heavily constrains and has no turbo or throttle! That means the headroom in a more ventilated space with better heatsink and a performance process would be huge. There is no doubt that OSX on a AX chip is coming. Even their Cheapest desktop could well be converted.
I'm going to disagree and say NOT CHEAP. The point made with the IBM decision is that Macs require much less upkeep than PC's. As a Mac user I've known this for ages. Likewise as I mentioned above, my children choose PC laptops but still have the occasional issue with Windows. Thus I don't see them as beholden to purchasing a Windows PC in the future if an alternative exists that could give them what they want. However these Chromebooks are being deployed on a huge scale and with almost zero tech support and the students and staff are using them just fine. I'd be shocked if the costs to support them are not the same as Macs if not lower. I say this as a Mac user, I've been very impressed by them. They are darn near bulletproof. Schools are notoriously short on IT staff and I've watched 100's of these Chromebooks be rolled out with no real issues at my site. With my sons it is a high school with well over 2500 students. The numbers in terms of IT costs have to be very good for this to have worked.
The problem with Chromebooks is that it's all web apps at this point. So either you go with free, ad-supported, data-harvesting apps of questionable quality. Or you buy a subscription to higher quality web app access which gets costly over time and also means you can't get at your apps if your internet connection isn't working well.
Not to mention login hassles and complication just to run an app. When it works, it's fine -- but when something goes wrong, there are a lot of moving parts at play. Am I entering the wrong password? Is it a problem with the web server? Is there a problem with the computer? This is where the deferred support headache is for Chromebooks: setup is easy because there's no application software and drivers to install and maintain, but making sure your internet connection is working and accessible from everywhere, and hoping that the servers required to access your web apps and data are up and running all the time (and recognizing when they're not) is the headache. You've essentially traded drivers & software maintenance for network infrastructure maintenance.
Wrong.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2015/11/ipad-pro-review-mac-like-speed-with-all-the-virtues-and-limitations-of-ios/4/#h2
"The A9X can’t quite get up to the level of a modern U-series Core i5 based on Broadwell or Skylake (see the 2015 MacBook Air and Surface Pro 4 results), but it’s roughly on the same level as a Core i5 from 2013 or so and it’s well ahead of Core M."
"Things are even more impressive on the GPU side, where the OpenGL version of the GFXBench test shows the A9X beating not just every previous iDevice, but every Intel GPU up to and including the Intel Iris Pro 5200 in the 15-inch MacBook Pro and the Intel HD 520 in the Surface Pro 4"
None of that is correct. Geekbench is not a reliable source for comparing across ISA's and GFXBench is testing in FP32 on Windows and FP16 on iOS.
That's like saying Car A goes from 0-60 in 3 seconds, while Car B goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, so Car A is faster. What's not being said is Car A is going from 0-60 kilometers per hour, while Car B is going from 0-60 miles per hour.
So again, that's simply not true.
I'm going to disagree and say NOT CHEAP. The point made with the IBM decision is that Macs require much less upkeep than PC's. As a Mac user I've known this for ages. Likewise as I mentioned above, my children choose PC laptops but still have the occasional issue with Windows. Thus I don't see them as beholden to purchasing a Windows PC in the future if an alternative exists that could give them what they want. However these Chromebooks are being deployed on a huge scale and with almost zero tech support and the students and staff are using them just fine. I'd be shocked if the costs to support them are not the same as Macs if not lower. I say this as a Mac user, I've been very impressed by them. They are darn near bulletproof. Schools are notoriously short on IT staff and I've watched 100's of these Chromebooks be rolled out with no real issues at my site. With my sons it is a high school with well over 2500 students. The numbers in terms of IT costs have to be very good for this to have worked.
The problem with Chromebooks is that it's all web apps at this point. So either you go with free, ad-supported, data-harvesting apps of questionable quality. Or you buy a subscription to higher quality web app access which gets costly over time and also means you can't get at your apps if your internet connection isn't working well.
Not to mention login hassles and complication just to run an app. When it works, it's fine -- but when something goes wrong, there are a lot of moving parts at play. Am I entering the wrong password? Is it a problem with the web server? Is there a problem with the computer? This is where the deferred support headache is for Chromebooks: setup is easy because there's no application software and drivers to install and maintain, but making sure your internet connection is working and accessible from everywhere, and hoping that the servers required to access your web apps and data are up and running all the time (and recognizing when they're not) is the headache. You've essentially traded drivers & software maintenance for network infrastructure maintenance.
It is web apps but like most things these days, WIFI is ubiquitous.
The second part seems absurd. How many steps do you think Apple requires for you to sign into your iCloud, your iTunes store, Apple Music, etc. This was recently illustrated in an article I saw that had the number of steps at around 60 from what I recall. I don't see any computer out there that would be immune from wondering if the mail server is down, etc. As for name and password, Google has been smart there with Chrome storing passwords not only for websites but between all machines on which you are signed into Chrome. They make it very easy.
Now some of the problems you mention are real. I mentioned how the kids are basically taking the same hardware and bypassing the limitations of ChromeOS using Linux. However Google themselves have said that they are basically bringing Android apps to Chrome as well. Apple won't be standing still of course. In the meantime when we want to know why iPad is flagging, it has been outsold by Chrombooks to schools and Chromebooks are shipping more units than even windows laptops.
That doesn't mean Chromebooks are perfect. Most people don't consider iPad's perfect when compared to a laptop and this is true even with the iPad Pro. All companies are going to be advancing their products for consumers in the future but iPad sale right now are not dominating in part because of Chromebooks. The article that inspired this thread examines both Windows laptops/Surface tablets and Android tablets. It leaves out Chromebooks. The answer is Chromebooks.
It is web apps but like most things these days, WIFI is ubiquitous.
In my experience with WiFi in public places where many people are using it (and it's not being paid for), it's quite flakey and problematic.
I'm talking about bona-fide native applications which aren't tied to a network login of any kind (which are becoming more rare by the day, I realize). Like Microsoft Office prior to Office365, or Adobe Creative Suite prior to the cloud version. You simply launch the app and go -- no login, no cloud, no ideal network connection required.
And yes, I have iCloud keychain which remembers all my passwords and logs me in (same as the system used on Chromebooks), which works fine most of the time. However, there are times when the iCloud servers are down and all the auto-logins in the world aren't going to make a difference if the server itself can't feed you the actual application. I've worked on web applications which rely on Google web APIs, and the servers for those APIs go down once a week or so (and boy do people complain when it happens).
I've also had a ton of problems with my various Microsoft accounts randomly not working (and I can't use MS Visual Studio or MS Office). It's really confusing trying to figure out what the problem is when it happens. I see this happen in schools a lot as well. I'm not sure what perfect networking world you live in, but my experience has been anything but perfect.
Now some of the problems you mention are real. I mentioned how the kids are basically taking the same hardware and bypassing the limitations of ChromeOS using Linux. However Google themselves have said that they are basically bringing Android apps to Chrome as well.
Yes, I read that.
This will essentially create the same situation as MS Surface where you have apps that were written for a touch-based input device being run on a mouse + keyboard based device (laptop). And so it'll suffer the same problems where things are often frustrating to use because they don't fit the interaction model.
People will typically suffer though this in order to get apps cheaper or for free, but how much lost productivity is there when you have to adapt your work style to compensate for apps which simply weren't designed for your hardware? It's amazing how much people will put themselves through just to get a free app. This might fly in classrooms where budget restrictions outweigh time restrictions. But in a workplace where labour costs (based on time) are paramount, wasted time fiddling with substandard apps doesn't fly (assuming you have managers who are aware enough to understand this problem).
As someone who works in software and tried to pitch making fully functional iOS versions of desktop apps, I can say you are bang on here. The vast majority of apps are designed to be one-hit wonders because there's very little money to be made after that initial sale (if you're a paid app).
In-app purchase models are great for funding games, but don't work well for major desktop apps like word processors and other content creation tools. People want to buy the full featured app and not have to buy add-ons. However, once you've sold that full featured app to them, there's no way to fund upgrades year after year unless you create a whole new app each year. Which doesn't sit well with people who already paid for the same app last year. The only other business model is the paid subscription model (ala Adobe), which sucks because customers lose access to their apps if they don't pay their subscription.
IMO, this is probably the number 1 issue that Apple "could address" to improve iPad sales - improve the app ecosystem so that some truly great & "different from PC" applications are developed. Applications which make use of the portable nature & larger screen to do new workflows and functions that a keyboard + mouse isn't as good at. While there are a plethora of apps available for iOS, and iPad specifically, most of them are relatively simple apps.
I first read about this over at Ben Thompson's blog on Stratechery. Apple has been very cautious & conservative with the App Store and the applications which have been developed. Perhaps due to history where they saw premium & popular applications (like from MS and Adobe) become more popular than the platform at the time (90s & early 2000s), and felt like a loss of control. However, given where Apple has now taken "iOS & OSX as a platform", they should be able to give developers more incentives without threat to the application becoming bigger than the ecosystem.
Specific areas where Apple could further empower application developers, providing incentives for better apps, and further entrench Apple's position (all without any real downside IMO):
- Trial period for all purchases (e.g. 15 days usage prior to payment). This would enable apps with superior features to charge more as the improvements can be determined without risk.
- Allow charging for major upgrades. Perhaps some guidelines that you can't have chargeable upgrades any more frequently than once-per-year. Also rules that App can't stop working without the upgrade - upgrade provides more features.
- Easy mechanism for users to provide feedback to developers through the App Store (not just reviews). Also ability for app developers to respond to negative reviews. Allow some communication on upcoming improvements to Apps (upgrades).
- Consider changing the App Store revenue share for subscription services (towards the rumoured 15% that HBO Now or Netflix get).
For those that might bring up the IBM deal, I believe that is a different beast. IBM is building apps which are front-ends for their service offerings. It is a great approach for both Apple and IBM, and deliver value to the enterprise customers, but it is not addressing the broader market.
Apple has the most important platform now with the high end of mobile and traditional computing, spread across 3 device categories (smartphone, tablet, laptop/desktop) and extending into wearables. I think they can do more to extract value from it, and entrench it further.
None of that is correct. Geekbench is not a reliable source for comparing across ISA's and GFXBench is testing in FP32 on Windows and FP16 on iOS.
That's like saying Car A goes from 0-60 in 3 seconds, while Car B goes from 0-60 in 3.5 seconds, so Car A is faster. What's not being said is Car A is going from 0-60 kilometers per hour, while Car B is going from 0-60 miles per hour.
So again, that's simply not true.
you keep saying it isn't true without having any data to back it up with.
I don't agree witth this in theory. I don't think most users care if they "own" the app or not. They just care they can do what they need to with the app. That's all they should care about honestly. I don't think you will get people to pay for an upgrade if what they have works fine. I also think the old model of software sales where you buy a product and use it until it drops is that users don't get the best experience possible. Subscriptions are the future of software development much like music. There is a reason why music streaming is taking off and subscription model for apps is the same business model applied to software.
This model does work best for software development houses for sure because you have a pretty much guaranteed/predictable revenue stream. However, all you need to do is go on forums with end users of Adobe CS to see how much customers actually like it. For some people it works (contractors who can bill the cost to customers, design shops who can license for a large group, and similar). For others who are paying out of their own pocket and need to use over a long period of time (learning, personal projects, etc), it doesn't.
The situation is similar to the "lease or own" model for cars. For those who can expense a car for business, the leasing model makes sense. For those buying a car for personal use and want to keep it for use over 10-15 years, it doesn't. It's good to have both options.
iPad sales are down because the iPhone 6/6s plus cannibalized the low end (iPad mini), and because the replacement cycle on iPads is really long - probably as long as the Mac cycle.
iPads right now are "appliances". Since they are really not an important device as far as real productivity is concerned, the iPad you bought today will basically function (as a consumption device) like it did on day one for the next 10 years. Without significant new functionality, there's little incentive to upgrade.
I state this opinion from my own experience. I have an iPhone 4s, which I will replace with an iPhone 6s this year, and then hand the 4s down to the kids as an "iPod". The family iPad will remain untouched this year, because Apple failed to introduce a new iPad Air 3, meaning there is no significant incentive at all to replace our current iPad.
The iPad Pro looks really nifty, but it really doesn't fit the bill for what we use the iPad for. The iPad Air is perfect for our needs, and so I continue to wait for Apple to update it. The next purchase right after a new iPhone will be a new MacBook Pro, cause it's time to upgrade our real productivity tool.
Now some of the problems you mention are real. I mentioned how the kids are basically taking the same hardware and bypassing the limitations of ChromeOS using Linux. However Google themselves have said that they are basically bringing Android apps to Chrome as well.
Yes, I read that.
This will essentially create the same situation as MS Surface where you have apps that were written for a touch-based input device being run on a mouse + keyboard based device (laptop). And so it'll suffer the same problems where things are often frustrating to use because they don't fit the interaction model.
People will typically suffer though this in order to get apps cheaper or for free, but how much lost productivity is there when you have to adapt your work style to compensate for apps which simply weren't designed for your hardware? It's amazing how much people will put themselves through just to get a free app. This might fly in classrooms where budget restrictions outweigh time restrictions. But in a workplace where labour costs (based on time) are paramount, wasted time fiddling with substandard apps doesn't fly (assuming you have managers who are aware enough to understand this problem).
You may well be right. I simply shared what is slowing iPad sales and wasn't accounted for in the article. I'm not saying it is the perfect solution now nor that it will be the perfect solution in the future. As an example some Android phone companies managed to do decently when Apple was locked into the 4 inch form factor. Now that Apple has moved to larger factors, those companies are not doing as well.
Chromebooks are doing well in an area that Apple doesn't care to go. It is a $250-300 per unit solution with an integrated mouse and trackpad. It allows use with multiple logins and can easily be centrally managed. It doesn't have a hard drive which allows lot of battery life, and does allow use of thumbdrives and MicroSD cards. If Apple goes there I have no doubt their solution will be better than current providers. However Apple isn't going there for now.
This whole article is unnecessary.
iPad has very long upgrade cycle. Without contracts, people OWN these devices, and they are not as easy to trade in as a phone (size).
Does the tech industry run articles about people's upgrade cycles on PCs/Macs/Televisions?
iPad penetrated strong, and stays strong with the people that don't yet have one. I see people with iPad 2 just beginning to think about an upgrade. It is not mystery.
Totally agreed. I think there are three issues:
a) Most iPad users use the iPad for consumption, not creation (in spite of the beautiful iPad TV ads). Because of that and because the original iPad was of such quality design (although a bit heavy), there's no need to upgrade within a short timeframe. Personally, I'm still using a late-2008 MacBook Pro and with the possible exception of intensive tight video editing, it's still fine for everything else I do, including photo post-processing in Photoshop. I think the iPad is similar in that regard.
b) eBook usage has not met expectations in the industry. I think the industry expected most people to move to eBooks in the same growth pattern as people have moved to digital media for music, but that has never happened.
c) If you have a computer (presumably a Mac) and you have a smartphone, especially a smartphone with a large screen, you don't really need an iPad.
I haven't yet seen the iPad Pro in person, but I think it's Apple's attempt to create a new category for those people who don't think they need a computer. Since Mac sales are a relatively tiny part of Apple's overall income, this is a way around that.
That's true only from the standpoint that with phones and Pads, fewer people are using their computers as much as they had in the past. But I still think any survey of PCs in use will show that 95% or more are Windows. And certainly in Enterprise, almost all are Windows. So in terms of usage, Windows is still a very important platform. In terms of driving technology forward, maybe not.
I am a big fan of Amazon's Fire TV. But, my new Apple TV has relegated my main Fire TV to Prime use. There is not one app that reliably enables AirPlay on the Fire TV though some work under certain conditions. Even using an Amazon tablet to cast to a Fire TV is a pain. These are minor issues though. The ATV app store is on a path to put the Amazon one to shame and it will only accelerate. Th AFTV does have Kodi via an unofficial install but Plex on the ATV is better in my opinion. I prefer Alexander on my Echo to Siri but Siri on the ATV does index Hulu, Netflix and iTunes. The non-ad Hulu+Netflix compares favourably with Prime+Netflix.
I would recommend a Fire TV without hesitation but I think the ATV has a more exciting future. Both platforms are very good but the App Store will make the difference.
Note that I do not have a 2nd gen Fire TV so I don't know if that would change my views. I am not a gamer and don't care about 4K video. Of course the Fire stick is far less expensive and has that going for it. But then Chromecast is even less expensive:)
you keep saying it isn't true without having any data to back it up with.
Data? The results for Windows devices in GFXBench and 3DMark are high (full) precision, the iPad Pro scores are not (source). It's very simple to understand that these are not equal benchmarks for Windows and iOS.
Looking at something like 3DMark (running in full precision on Windows):
Surface Pro 4 (Core i5*) [FP32]:
Fire Strike - 857
Cloud Gate - 5984
?Ice Storm - 61482
Surface Pro 4 (Core m3*) [FP32]:
Fire Strike - 740
Cloud Gate - 4604
?Ice Storm - 42046
Fire Strike - N/A
Cloud Gate - N/A
?Ice Storm - 33540
*Results do not include Intel Speed-Shift.
was that a failure?
Data? The results for Windows devices in GFXBench and 3DMark are high (full) precision, the iPad Pro scores are not (source). It's very simple to understand that these are not equal benchmarks for Windows and iOS.
Looking at something like 3DMark (running in full precision on Windows):
Surface Pro 4 (Core i5*) [FP32]:
Fire Strike - 857
Cloud Gate - 5984
?Ice Storm - 61482
Surface Pro 4 (Core m3*) [FP32]:
Fire Strike - 740
Cloud Gate - 4604
?Ice Storm - 42046
Fire Strike - N/A
Cloud Gate - N/A
?Ice Storm - 33540
*Results do not include Intel Speed-Shift.
What Anandtech actually said was that graphics benchmarks on Windows are forced to run in high precision "only due to limitations in OpenGL versus OpenGL ES," while mobile platforms can use OpenGL ES. That, of course, also ignores that Apple's core graphics (and new apps) are increasingly using Metal, not OpenGL ES.
However, the only comparison numbers you cited were IceStorm, which is well known to incorporate physics tests that use a software library optimized for Android and Windows but which is neither used on nor optimized for iOS. It's a shibboleth test trotted out by Apple haters (See phony benchmarks).
So if you want to demand that benchmarks reflect reality, its pretty hypocritical to also base your argument on Future Mark 3DMark Ice Storm.
What Anandtech actually said was that graphics benchmarks on Windows are forced to run in high precision "only due to limitations in OpenGL versus OpenGL ES," while mobile platforms can use OpenGL ES. That, of course, also ignores that Apple's core graphics (and new apps) are increasingly using Metal, not OpenGL ES.
However, the only comparison numbers you cited were IceStorm, which is well known to incorporate physics tests that use a software library optimized for Android and Windows but which is neither used on nor optimized for iOS. It's a shibboleth test trotted out by Apple haters (See phony benchmarks).
So if you want to demand that benchmarks reflect reality, its pretty hypocritical to also base your argument on Future Mark 3DMark Ice Storm.
Daniel, I don't base my argument on that as it's not even running in FP32 on iOS. I'm making a point to the other user that these benchmarks are not equal. Ice Storm is also an OpenGL ES 2.0 or DirectX 9_3 test, so when you bring up Metal, the same could be said regarding the Surface's hardware which is already enabled for DirectX 12. Cloud Gate tests DirectX 10 and Fire Strike tests DirectX 11, neither are on iOS.
Regarding Ice Storm's physics tests, go argue with FutureMark if you think they need to improve their product. As for other benchmarks, GFXBench 3.0 is another mobile benchmark using OpenGL ES 3.0. Their newest GFXBench 4.0 isn't even supported on the A8/A8X or prior, and it might not even be supported on the A9/A9X depending on the optional add-ons Apple is using with the PowerVR 7XT GPU.
The family iPad will remain untouched this year, because Apple failed to introduce a new iPad Air 3
was that a failure?
Yes