... There are a number of reasons Apple skipped an "X" update for 2020. For one, the company potentially felt its A12 series was powerful enough to handle the computational demands of 2020 iPad Pro.
...
Any questions?
Essentially it's a question why one would want a 300mph car? There is, at present, no real use for it unless you're on a track or you just want bragging rights.
New applications and software will change that. But right now the A12 does the jobs it is required to do and does them well.
It the same bait and switch or in this case the same old vs. same old minus the upgraded label!
How so? The latest iPad Pro was an incremental update to the previous version; it had some improvements in the camera/memory, etc but how is Apple doing a bait & switch? The specs are clearly labeled and accurate. People can decide to update if they want.
As for the A12x vs A12z, I think the naming makes perfect sense. Like the ipad, they made an incremental improvement in the original design/performance (more likely an incremental improvement in manufacturing.) the ‘z’ suffix simply portrays that.
The sole reason this iPad exists is to get Lidar in the hands of developers before it gets a broad rollout in the fall with the new iPhones. Whatever form WWDC takes this year, expect iOS 14 to heavily utilize AR and lidar.
I also think that many people who get hung up on the spec side of things are the very same people who will never utilize their devices to the fullest to begin with. I remember all of the Fandroid fools from some years ago that used to invade this forum and boast about their multicore phones, never mind that they all performed like garbage and were easily beat and outperformed by a dual core iPhone.
This! With this crowd it’s only about benchmarks. They don’t give a damn about real life performance, design, or UI. And their biggest delusion is that if the specs and benchmarks are there then the performance must be too. As we should all know by now that is patently false.
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
I wonder if this is related to the chipset engineers who tried to start their own company while still working for Apple. Perhaps that stalled development for the A13X/14X. That started about two years ago if I recall correctly.
Regardless, I hadn’t picked up an iPad Pro until these 2020’s dropped. I’m loving Procreate and Lumafusion on this compared to the iPads and Apple Pencil 1.0.
I'm jealous. My artist skills do not bring me to that level. My stick figures look just as good on my 2017 iPad Pro as they would on a 2020 version.
... There are a number of reasons Apple skipped an "X" update for 2020. For one, the company potentially felt its A12 series was powerful enough to handle the computational demands of 2020 iPad Pro.
...
Any questions?
Essentially it's a question why one would want a 300mph car? There is, at present, no real use for it unless you're on a track or you just want bragging rights.
New applications and software will change that. But right now the A12 does the jobs it is required to do and does them well.
So why did Apple put an A13 in the iPhone 11 series and why isn't the A13 good enough for the 2020 iPad Pro? Seems better to use an A13 (or even an A13X) than spare parts from the previous generation. I know if I were spending big bucks on a new iPad Pro that I'd feel better knowing I was getting the latest gen chip instead of a recycled part.
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
Top 10 Biggest Companies of All Time
Dutch East India Company: $8.28 trillion.
Mississippi Company: $6.8 trillion.
South Sea Company: $4.5 trillion.
Saudi Aramco: $1.89 trillion.
Apple: $1.3 trillion.
PetroChina: $1.24 trillion.
Microsoft: $1.2 trillion.
Standard Oil: more than $1 trillion.
Keep in mind that Saudi Aramco only has 2-3% of itself on the public market. So it is potentially extremely more valuable than what you have listed.
Can they be sued for that? Selling a product that you later find out was intentionally hobbled?
I doubt it. IBM does it all the time. I do work on IBM Power I machines and they are multi-core machines, but sold as single-core machines. The additional cores can be unlocked by paying IBM more money (ransom) and a software "switch" to bring the core(s) online. I absolutely hate that.
It's like buying a V8 but with 2 of the spark plugs disconnected and selling it as a V6.
Oracle does exactly the same thing with their all-in-one hardware/software database "appliances" (Exadata servers). If get the same physical hardware whether you by a full-rack, half-rack, or quarter-rack solution (always makes we think of a tasty slab of baby back ribs, but maybe that's just me). The unlock cores and storage based on how much you pay.
I think the moral of this story is for iPad buyers to wait for reviews of CPU performance and architecture before purchasing new iPads. This simply not enough “improvement” to justify a brand new device for anything other than hardcore Apple fans.
Nonsense. (Well I don't disagree with the waiting for reviews advice.) There are consumers all across the spectrum of needs, from people who already have a very capable new-ish iPad to first-time buyers. Why shouldn't Apple roll out improved devices when they can?
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
Top 10 Biggest Companies of All Time
Dutch East India Company: $8.28 trillion.
Mississippi Company: $6.8 trillion.
South Sea Company: $4.5 trillion.
Saudi Aramco: $1.89 trillion.
Apple: $1.3 trillion.
PetroChina: $1.24 trillion.
Microsoft: $1.2 trillion.
Standard Oil: more than $1 trillion.
Never heard of the Mississippi Company; I'll have to look it up. In any case GeorgeBMac never said the "biggest" companies, he said the "great" companies. Obviously there are examples from histories of companies that succeeded (for a time) through tactics that weren't consumer friendly. But I don't think they are "great" companies in George's sense.
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
Top 10 Biggest Companies of All Time
Dutch East India Company: $8.28 trillion.
Mississippi Company: $6.8 trillion.
South Sea Company: $4.5 trillion.
Saudi Aramco: $1.89 trillion.
Apple: $1.3 trillion.
PetroChina: $1.24 trillion.
Microsoft: $1.2 trillion.
Standard Oil: more than $1 trillion.
Never heard of the Mississippi Company; I'll have to look it up. In any case GeorgeBMac never said the "biggest" companies, he said the "great" companies. Obviously there are examples from histories of companies that succeeded (for a time) through tactics that weren't consumer friendly. But I don't think they are "great" companies in George's sense.
The OP said 'trillion dollar company" so of course he was, using greatest in the sense of greatest wealth. If not then he was going his own way with a post that didn't address the OP or even $Trillion dollar companies.
Quote:"Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart."
My car can do 200 miles per hour. Do you ever drive at 200 miles per hour? No. Can you drive at 200 miles per hour? No. So why do you need a car that does 200 miles per hour.
Same with benchmarks.
The only time you are ever pushing the CPU is when you run a benchmark. You don't push the CPU with normal every day use so you aren't going to notice the extra speed.
With iOS products, the speed you feel is down to the software, not hardware for 99.99% of the users.
I preordered the 1st iPad. It was a great reading device.
When they updated to Retina display I bought a new one and was pleased.
Unlimited data became prevalent so updated again. It was very handy to be always on.
The iPad Pro was released and I bought one. The Apple pencil is in a drawer some where. But, it’s useful to someone right...
The new iPad. It has LIDAR. Not sure why anyone currently needs it.
Prices between purchases: $500 in the beginning, $1000 for my iPad Pro (midrange)
Current midrange iPad Pro = $1250 and no reason to buy.
If they want to price it at that, it needs to be compelling. I’d rather own an MacBook Air without the limitations of iPadOS. The great processor in the iPad doesn’t add anything to the experience, so a minor update is meaningless.
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
Top 10 Biggest Companies of All Time
Dutch East India Company: $8.28 trillion.
Mississippi Company: $6.8 trillion.
South Sea Company: $4.5 trillion.
Saudi Aramco: $1.89 trillion.
Apple: $1.3 trillion.
PetroChina: $1.24 trillion.
Microsoft: $1.2 trillion.
Standard Oil: more than $1 trillion.
Even the least of that list lit American homes for the first time.
Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart.
No, quite the opposite actually.
The world's great companies were founded and built on making great products that met people's needs -- Not financially driven organizations more interested in stock buybacks than the products or services they were selling. Neither did they become great by ripping off their customers.
Top 10 Biggest Companies of All Time
Dutch East India Company: $8.28 trillion.
Mississippi Company: $6.8 trillion.
South Sea Company: $4.5 trillion.
Saudi Aramco: $1.89 trillion.
Apple: $1.3 trillion.
PetroChina: $1.24 trillion.
Microsoft: $1.2 trillion.
Standard Oil: more than $1 trillion.
Never heard of the Mississippi Company; I'll have to look it up. In any case GeorgeBMac never said the "biggest" companies, he said the "great" companies. Obviously there are examples from histories of companies that succeeded (for a time) through tactics that weren't consumer friendly. But I don't think they are "great" companies in George's sense.
of course he was, using greatest in the sense of greatest wealth.
I think the more interesting point is what is Apple developing instead? Apple usually develops a top end SOC in time for an ~18 month iPad Pro release. This time they didn’t. What are they spending their chip development resources on instead? It’s not like they are spending less on silicon R&D this year. Is it ARM for a MacBook or a new SiP for a new AR headset? Something else?
... There are a number of reasons Apple skipped an "X" update for 2020. For one, the company potentially felt its A12 series was powerful enough to handle the computational demands of 2020 iPad Pro.
...
Any questions?
Essentially it's a question why one would want a 300mph car? There is, at present, no real use for it unless you're on a track or you just want bragging rights.
New applications and software will change that. But right now the A12 does the jobs it is required to do and does them well.
So why did Apple put an A13 in the iPhone 11 series and why isn't the A13 good enough for the 2020 iPad Pro? Seems better to use an A13 (or even an A13X) than spare parts from the previous generation. I know if I were spending big bucks on a new iPad Pro that I'd feel better knowing I was getting the latest gen chip instead of a recycled part.
If the choice is between an A13 and A12Z for the iPad Pro, the A12Z is the better option. About 20% lower single core, but 35% higher multicore and 50% higher in Metal. Keep in mind that the A12Z is as fast as the MBP13 models and lower end MB models in single core, and the 2020 iPad Pro models are really what people should be buying if replace 2017 iPad Pros or older.
As for why they didn't do an A13X? It's all speculation at this point in time. Maybe they could get the thermals to work on TSMC N7FF. Maybe it was never in the plan at all, and Apple wanted a bump the iPad Pro with something so that it would be new to go along with the Magic Keyboard. Since Apple doesn't update the iPad Pro on a yearly basis, there won't be a corresponding X SoC just on schedule timing alone. There wasn't an A11X. Heck, going further back, there wasn't an A7X for example for whatever reasons, and Apple was updating iPads on a yearly basis back then.
For iPad Pro models, the order of importance for compute components should be RAM, storage and CPU. The latter 2 are well covered now for iPads. The next thing they need to offer are 8 GB and 16 GB RAM options. The RAM amount is a big player for the iPad to start doing more and more of the workflows people do with MBP laptops along with certain software changes.
Comments
As for the A12x vs A12z, I think the naming makes perfect sense. Like the ipad, they made an incremental improvement in the original design/performance (more likely an incremental improvement in manufacturing.) the ‘z’ suffix simply portrays that.
Quote:"Trillion dollar company doesn’t make those trillions by being good at heart."
Do you ever drive at 200 miles per hour?
No.
Can you drive at 200 miles per hour?
No.
So why do you need a car that does 200 miles per hour.
Same with benchmarks.
The only time you are ever pushing the CPU is when you run a benchmark. You don't push the CPU with normal every day use so you aren't going to notice the extra speed.
With iOS products, the speed you feel is down to the software, not hardware for 99.99% of the users.
When they updated to Retina display I bought a new one and was pleased.
Unlimited data became prevalent so updated again. It was very handy to be always on.
The iPad Pro was released and I bought one. The Apple pencil is in a drawer some where. But, it’s useful to someone right...
The new iPad. It has LIDAR. Not sure why anyone currently needs it.
Prices between purchases: $500 in the beginning, $1000 for my iPad Pro (midrange)
Current midrange iPad Pro = $1250 and no reason to buy.
If they want to price it at that, it needs to be compelling. I’d rather own an MacBook Air without the limitations of iPadOS. The great processor in the iPad doesn’t add anything to the experience, so a minor update is meaningless.
Even the least of that list lit American homes for the first time.
Wrong! Again!
As for why they didn't do an A13X? It's all speculation at this point in time. Maybe they could get the thermals to work on TSMC N7FF. Maybe it was never in the plan at all, and Apple wanted a bump the iPad Pro with something so that it would be new to go along with the Magic Keyboard. Since Apple doesn't update the iPad Pro on a yearly basis, there won't be a corresponding X SoC just on schedule timing alone. There wasn't an A11X. Heck, going further back, there wasn't an A7X for example for whatever reasons, and Apple was updating iPads on a yearly basis back then.
For iPad Pro models, the order of importance for compute components should be RAM, storage and CPU. The latter 2 are well covered now for iPads. The next thing they need to offer are 8 GB and 16 GB RAM options. The RAM amount is a big player for the iPad to start doing more and more of the workflows people do with MBP laptops along with certain software changes.